Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04646/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04646-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY E. FLEMING,

Plaintiff,

v.

CIGNA HEALTH CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-04646-KAW 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND; ORDER 

REASSIGNING CASE

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 7, 2015, Plaintiff commenced this action against Cigna Health Corporation, 

Cigna Health & Life Insurance Company, Cigna Healthcare of California, Inc., Starwood Hotels 

& Resorts Management Company, Inc., and Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. 

(Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which was 

granted on November 20, 2015. (IFP App., Dkt. No. 2; Order, Dkt. No. 7.) On January 4, 2016, 

Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Pl.'s Consent, 

Dkt. No. 10.) Defendants, however, did not consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

1

 (Dkt. Nos. 

13, 15.) Accordingly, the undersigned now issues this REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

and directs the Clerk to REASSIGN this case to a district judge.

II. DISCUSSION

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the defendants have refused to comply with the 

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA") "regarding the release of 

Plaintiffs [sic] Medical records because plaintiff is a Jehovah's Witness, knowing that it will lead 

 

1 On February 16, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. Dkt. No. 18. 

The adoption of this report and recommendation would render the motion moot.

Case 3:15-cv-04646-EMC Document 22 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

to a lawsuit against a doctor that administered blood to plaintiff." (Compl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff also 

alleges that this is a violation of "the 1st amendment of the United States constitution, USC 21 

subchapters 1 and 8, USC title 42 Subsections 2000bb-1, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 

1990, FRCP rule 34, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Pl 104191 (August 21st 

1996) 100 statue [sic] 1936, and 42 USCA 210 Note part 7 section 707,102,2713 and title 2 

subtitle A on fraud and abuse." (Id.)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court has a continuing duty to dismiss any case in which a 

party is proceeding in forma pauperis if the Court determines that the action is (1) frivolous or 

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) ("[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations 

and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact."). 

Pro se plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis must be given leave to "amend their 

complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 

amendment." Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1235 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal citations and 

quotation marks omitted).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), "[a] pleading that states a claim for relief 

must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 

relief." This rule "require[s] that the pleading . . . give[ ] the opposing party fair notice of the 

nature and basis or grounds of the claim and a general indication of the type of litigation 

involved." Immigrant Assistance Project of Los Angeles Cty. Fed'n of Labor (AFL-CIO) v. I.N.S., 

306 F.3d 842, 865 (9th Cir. 2002). "[A]lthough pro se pleadings are construed liberally, even pro 

se pleadings must meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice of what it is 

that it allegedly did wrong." Doe v. Fed. Dist. Court, 467 Fed. App’x 725, 727 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, the allegations in the complaint do not identify which defendant, or defendants, 

engaged in the purportedly wrongful conduct. In fact, while five different entities are named as 

defendants, not one is mentioned in the body of the complaint. Nor does any allegation show that 

Case 3:15-cv-04646-EMC Document 22 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

any one entity is responsible for the misconduct alleged. In light of this, Plaintiff has failed to set 

forth "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" as 

required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As such, the complaint fails to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's complaint 

be DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. At a minimum, the amended complaint shall 

comply with Rule 8(a)'s requirement of a "short and plain" statement of the claim and the pertinent 

facts showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Plaintiff shall specifically (1) identify the legal and 

factual basis for each cause of action, (2) identify which causes of action are brought against 

which defendants, and (3) provide a specific statement of how each defendant engaged in the 

conduct that is the basis for the claims asserted against that defendant.

In order to draft a viable complaint, Plaintiff may wish to contact the Federal Pro Bono 

Project for free limited legal assistance. Plaintiff may schedule an appointment by calling the 

appointment line at (415) 782-8982 or by signing up for an appointment in the appointment book 

located outside the San Francisco or Oakland Legal Help Center office. Appointments are held 

Monday through Friday at various times throughout the day. Plaintiff can speak with an attorney 

who will provide basic legal help, but not legal representation.

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge 

within fourteen days after being served with a copy. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 

Civil L.R. 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal 

the District Court's order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS Controls Corp., No. C-10-5568 

EDL, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011).

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Dated: 02/16/16

______________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04646-EMC Document 22 Filed 02/16/16 Page 3 of 3