Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00042/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00042-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CHW
Defendant
Frederick L. Kay
Plaintiff
St. Francis Hospital
Defendant

Document Text:

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK L. KAY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL, UNKNOWN

INSURANCE CARRIER, AND JANE AND

JOHN DOES 1-50,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-00042 JSW

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Plaintiff Frederic Kay’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has filed a complaint alleging violations of

18 U.S.C. § 1964(a) “Civil Rico” and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against St. Francis Hospital, an

Unknown Insurance Carrier and John and Jane Does 1-50. 

In order to state a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must allege (1) a

violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, (2) committed by

a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). The latter

requirement excludes from the statute “merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or

wrongful.” Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1002 (1982). 

The factual allegations set forth in the complaint, in their entirety, are as follows: “That

on January 4th ending after midnight on January 5, 2005 . [sic] Plaintiff Frederick L. Kay was

assaulted by two security personnel And aided and abetted by a third all in the employment of

St. Francis Hospital and CHW their parent company .” (Compl., ¶ 1.) The facts in the

Complaint do not demonstrate that any of the Defendants were acting under “color of state law.” 

Case 3:06-cv-00042-JSW Document 4 Filed 01/12/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Further, to the extent Defendant St. Francis hospital and “Unknown Insurance Carrier” are

private entities, Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that the conduct of the private entity is

fairly attributable to the state. Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 838 (1982); see also

Martin v. Pac. Northwest Bell Tel. Co., 441 F.2d 1116, 1118 (9th Cir. 1971).

Assuming the Defendants are private entities, in order to allege that their conduct is

attributable to the state, Plaintiff must set forth facts establishing the existence of a conspiracy to

deprive Plaintiff of a right guaranteed in the Constitution or under the laws of the United States. 

Woodrum v. Woodward County, Okla., 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1989). There are no such

facts alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint. See Sherman v. Yakahi, 549 F.2d 1287, 1290 (9th Cir.

1977) (“Conclusionary allegations, unsupported by facts, [will be] rejected as insufficient to

state a claim under the Civil Rights Act,” and holding that claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981,

1983 must be pled with specificity). 

Similarly, the facts currently alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint fail to set forth a Civil Rico

violation. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a) provides the Court with jurisdiction to remedy violations of 18

U.S.C. § 1962. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) provides that “any person injured in his business or

property by reason of a violation of [18 U.S.C. § 1962] may sue therefore in any United States

district court ... .” Plaintiff sets forth no facts stating how his business or property was injured

by a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962, nor does the Complaint set forth facts from which this Court

can discern the nature of the RICO enterprise alleged nor which provision of 18 U.S.C. § 1962

allegedly has been violated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court “shall dismiss

[a] case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or appeal ... fails to state a claim on

which relief may be granted.” Plaintiff has failed to set forth facts demonstrating that he has a

claim under Section 1983 or for a civil RICO violation. That does not, however, end the

Court’s inquiry. 

The Court also has considered whether the facts alleged state a claim on any other legal

theory. Assuming arguendo that Plaintiff has set forth sufficient facts to state a claim, federal

courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The federal courts can only adjudicate cases which the

Constitution or Congress authorize them to adjudicate: basically those cases involving diversity

Case 3:06-cv-00042-JSW Document 4 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

3

of citizenship (where the parties are from diverse states), or a federal question, or those cases to

which the United States is a party. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of

America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil

cases and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. See

id. at 377. Absent some basis for jurisdiction, this Court must dismiss the matter. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court

lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”); see also FW/PBS,

Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) (stating that the district court has an

independent obligation to determine subject matter jurisdiction). If the Court determines that 

subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Court must dismiss the case. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(h)(3). 

Having failed to set forth facts supporting violations of Section 1983 or facts supporting

a Civil Rico claim, claims over which this Court would have jurisdiction, there are no facts

alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint demonstrating that this Court would have subject matter

jurisdiction over this action on any other basis. 

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the

Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue this

action he must file an Amended Complaint and a renewed application to proceed in forma

pauperis by February 13, 2006. In any amended complaint, Plaintiff must include the basis for

which subject matter jurisdiction exists. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) (complaint must contain,

inter alia, “a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction

depends”). The Court advises Plaintiff that a Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, which contains

helpful information about proceeding without an attorney is available through the Court’s

website or in the Clerk’s office. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00042-JSW Document 4 Filed 01/12/06 Page 3 of 3