Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00384/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00384-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SRIKANTH TANGIRALA,

Plaintiff, CIV S-06-0384 FCD GGH PS

vs.

JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL

SERVICE, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ 

COMPENSATION, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

On January 29, 2007, this court recommended dismissal of defendants Medical

Board of California and Department of Managed Health Care of California and granted plaintiff

leave to file a Third Amended Complaint setting forth the following “with respect to each

remaining defendant separately: the specific statute or statutes under which plaintiff alleges each

claim, and the specific elements of each claim in terms of each statute.” Findings and

Recommendations, at p. 10 (original emphasis). The court stated that failure timely to file a

Third Amended Complaint meeting these requirements would result in a recommendation that

this case proceed on the Second Amended Complaint against the federal defendants only. The

court now issues these findings and recommendations.

Case 2:06-cv-00384-FCD-GGH Document 68 Filed 03/09/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Plaintiff asserts generally as follows (proposed Third Amended Complaint, at p. 8): 1

“Plaintiff contends that all the defendants mentioned in this complaint affected adversely the life,

health, happiness and peace in various ways by conducting improper medical tests, by not

conducting proper medical tests within time, by unnecessary referrals, by referring to irrelevant

information, by passing bad comments into and through the records, by writing improper

restrictions for work, by disclosing confidential information, by denying, deviating and delaying

the complaints, by making inappropriate decisions and determinations, by terminating the

employment.”

2

Plaintiff’s proposed Third Amended Complaint, timely filed, fails to satisfy

minimum pleading requirements. In addition to adding previously unnamed defendants (on the

title page only), the complaint merely references, without naming, “remaining defendants related

to industrial injury” and asserts generally their actions related to plaintiff’s health care1

constituted “a federal offense in violation of federal law.” In addition, plaintiff specifically

identifies violations of “the Equal Protection Act” for failure to process plaintiff’s complaints;

the Privacy Act for “passing unrelated information and disclosing confidential information by

misleading other staff;” 18 U.S.C. § 2340 (criminal statute defining torture), 18 U.S.C. § 1113

(criminal statute defining attempted murder and manslaughter) , and 18 U.S.C. § 1114

(punishments for killing or attempted killing of U.S. officer or employee). However, plaintiff

fails to articulate the specific elements of each of these claims and how the named defendants

violated these laws. None of these citations support causes of actions against the medical

personnel who treated plaintiff for his industrial injury. 

Despite this court’s liberal construction of plaintiff’s pro se pleadings, and

plaintiff’s opportunity to amend his complaint with specific instructions from the court, plaintiff

has failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted against any nonfederal defendant. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this case proceed on the

Second Amended Complaint against the federal defendants only. All other defendants named

therein should be dismissed, specifically, defendants San Quentin State Prison (“CDCR

California”), Dr. Ansumana Gebeh, Dr. Susan Scholey, Dr. Crispino Ylanan, and Dr. Douglas

Case 2:06-cv-00384-FCD-GGH Document 68 Filed 03/09/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

Merill. Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint should be stricken.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten

(10) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 3/9/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH5:Tang0384.f&r.II

Case 2:06-cv-00384-FCD-GGH Document 68 Filed 03/09/07 Page 3 of 3