Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03161/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03161-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

27

28

Order of Dismissal

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.08\Onerton3161_dismissal.ftsc.wpd1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL LOUIS ONERTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HIGHLAND HOSPITAL, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-3161 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). He has

been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks money damages from

defendants, a hospital and two physicians, based on the medical treatment they provided

to his wife after he shot her. The complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a

cognizable claim for relief.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was convicted of murdering his wife. After he shot her, she was taken to

the emergency room of Highland Hospital in Oakland. There, defendant Dr. Phan

allegedly failed to give her proper medical attention, and she ultimately died from the

gunshot wounds plaintiff had inflicted upon her. According to plaintiff, defendants did

not “intentionally harm” his wife, and if his wife “had not been shot she would not have

Case 5:08-cv-03161-JF Document 6 Filed 08/26/08 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

27

28

 1An inmate has an Eighth Amendment right to receive adequate medical care himself, Farmer

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994), but there is no authority such a constitutional right

extends to the medical care of family members. 

Order of Dismissal

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.08\Onerton3161_dismissal.ftsc.wpd2

died.” Complaint, Ex. 1 at 17. Plaintiff seeks damages from defendants for their“gross

negligence” and “medical malpractice” in treating his wife. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

B. Plaintiff’s Claim

Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a cognizable claim for relief under § 1983

because he fails to establish either element of a cognizable § 1983 claim. To state a claim

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) a person was acting under the

color of state law, and (2) the person committed a violation of a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). To

begin with, defendant Highland Hospital is a private entity, and its two employees

defendant Dr. Phan and Dr. Rudas, are private individuals. (See Complaint at 1.) As

such, they do not act under color of state law” and are not liable under § 1983. See

Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980) (a private individual generally does not act

under color of state law under § 1983). In addition, plaintiff does not cite any authority,

nor is the court aware of any, that he has a constitutional or other federal right to have his

wife receive adequate medical care.1

 Allegations of “gross negligence” and “medical

malpractice” are based on state law, not federal law. As plaintiff’s claims, even liberally

Case 5:08-cv-03161-JF Document 6 Filed 08/26/08 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.08\Onerton3161_dismissal.ftsc.wpd3

construed, are not against state actors and do not allege the violation of any federal right,

plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for relief under § 1983. 

Plaintiff has also failed to state a cognizable claim for relief under the ADA. To

state a claim under Title III of the ADA, a plaintiff must allege that private entity

discriminated against him on the basis of his disability in places of public

accommodation. See 42 U.S.C.§ 12182(a); see also Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890,

895 (9th Cir. 2002) (same, under Title II against public entities). To begin with, the

alleged mistreatment in this case is against plaintiff’s wife, not plaintiff. Furthermore,

there is no allegation of “discrimination,” let alone that such discrimination was on the

basis of any disability. As plaintiff does not allege that he was discriminated against, let

alone that he was discriminated against on the basis of any disability he suffers, he has

failed to state a cognizable claim for relief under the ADA.

As it is clear from the allegations in the complaint that plaintiff does not have a

cognizable claim for relief under § 1983 or the ADA, and that the deficiencies in the

complaint cannot be cured by amendment, leave to amend is not granted. See Janicki

Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994) (leave to amend need not be

granted where it constitutes an exercise in futility).

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim

for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

8/21/08

Case 5:08-cv-03161-JF Document 6 Filed 08/26/08 Page 3 of 3