Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05601/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05601-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leonard Ross
Plaintiff
San Francisco General Hospital
Defendant

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States 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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONARD ROSS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 06-05601 CRB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 

A court may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute an action in federal court without prepayment

of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable to pay

such fees or give security therefor. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff has submitted the

required documentation, and it is evident from his application that his assets and income are

insufficient to enable plaintiff to prosecute the action.

Viewing plaintiff’s application in isolation, it appears that she should be allowed to

proceed IFP. A court is under a continuing duty, however, to dismiss a case whenever it

determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which

relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-- (iii).

//

Case 3:06-cv-05601-CRB Document 7 Filed 09/25/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States 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

G:\CRBALL\2006\5601\orderdismissingcase.wpd 2

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed just two days after his unpleasant experience, fails to state

a claim against the San Francisco General Hospital. If plaintiff’s allegations are true,

plaintiff has good cause to be upset by how he was treated by Hospital staff on September 11

of this year. The Hospital’s challenged conduct, however, does not rise to the level of a

violation of plaintiff’s civil rights. According to plaintiff, he left the hospital of his own

accord “without incident.” The nurse who allegedly shouted at plaintiff even told him where

he could file a complaint with the patient advocate. This is not a federal case. If plaintiff

wishes to pursue this matter further he should file a written grievance with the Hospital’s

patient advocate. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05601-CRB Document 7 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 2