08-2876-cv White v. St. Joseph’s Hospital

1 

### UNI TED S TATES COURT OF AP P EALS 2 

### FO R TH E SEC O N D C IRC U IT 3 4 

# S UMM ARY ORDE R 5 6 RULING S B Y SUM M ARY O RDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTI AL EFFECT. CI TATION TO A SUM M ARY O RDER FILED 7 ON O R AFTER JANUA RY 1, 20 07 , IS PERM ITTED AN D IS G OV ERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCED URE 8 32 .1 AND THIS C OURT’S LO CAL RU LE 32. 1.1 . W HEN C ITING A SUM M ARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITHTHIS 9 COURT, A

PARTY MUST CITE EITH ER THE FEDERAL APPENDI X OR A N E L ECTRON IC DA TABAS E (W ITH TH E 10 NOTATI ON “SUM M ARY O RDER”). A PARTY CI TING A SUM M ARY O RDER MUST SERVE A CO PY OF IT ON ANY PART Y 11 NOT R

EPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 12 13 At a stat ed ter m of the United S tate s Court of App eals for the Second Circuit, 14 he ld a t t he Da nie l P at r ic k M oy niha n Un it e d St at e s C our th ous e , 5 00 P e ar l St r e e t, in t he 15 Ci tyof N e w Yo r k, o n t he 10 dayof M ar c h, two t hous and t e n. th 16 17 PRES ENT: 18 J OHN M. WAL KER, J R., 19 DEB RA ANN L I VI NGSTON, 20 GERARD E. LYNCH, 21 Circuit Judges

. 22

______________________________________________ 23 24 Saundra V . Whit e, 25 26 Plaintif f-Appellant , 27 28 v. 08-2876-c v 29 30 St. J oseph’s Hospital; PACE; University Hospital, 31 also known as Stony Br ook University

Hospital, 32 also known as Unive rsity Medica l Center at SUNY 33 at Sto ny

B ro ok ; D avid

R. Sm ith , Pr e sid e nt, Un ive rs ity Ho sp ita l; 34 Phi lip R. Sc ha e ng old , CE O, Un ive rs ity Ho sp ita l; 35 L or e tto Nurs ingHo me ; Mi c ha e l J. Sul liv an; 36 Go ve rn or ’s Of fi c e , N e w Y or

k St ate ; Cit

y of Sy ra c us e ; 37 On on da g a

County ; O akw oo d Ce me te ri e s; L a bo rator y Al lia nc e ; 38 Un ite d St ate s o f Ame ri c a ; O no nd a g a County Go ve rnme nt; 39 Unkn own D e fe nd ants , 40 41 Defendants-A ppellee s. 42

______________________________________________ 432 1 FOR APPEL LANT: Saundra V . Whit e, Sy rac use, Ne w York, pr o s e . 2 3 FOR APPEL L EE 4 UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA: Andre w T. B axter, United States Attorney for the 5 Norther n District of Ne w York ( Paula Ry an 6 Conan, Assistant United States Attorney , on the 7 memorandum brief ), Sy rac use, Ne w York. 8 9 F OR

AL LOT HE R A PPEL L EE S: No a pp e ara nc e s. 10 11 Appea l from a judg ment of the United States District Court for the Northe rn District of 12 New Y ork (Mc Curn, J. ). 13 UP ON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, 14 AND DECREED that the judg ment of the district cour t be AF F IRM ED

. 15 Plaintiff-Appellant Saundra V. White, pro s e , a

pp e a ls f ro m th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s sua 16 sp on tedismiss al of he r c ompl a i nt pu r s ua nt t o 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (B )(ii). We assume the 17 parties’ familiarity with the underly

ing f acts, the pr ocedur al history of the c ase, a

nd the issues 18 on appea l. 19 We review de novo the su a s po ntedismiss al of a

complaint pursuant to § 1915(e ). 20 Se e Gi an o v . G oo rd, 2 5 0 F. 3 d 1 4 6 , 1 4 9 -5 0 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 1 ). A c o mp l ai n tmu s tp l ea d “e n o u gh 21 fac ts to state a claim to re lief that is plausible on its face .” Be ll A tla nti c Cor p. v . Two mb ly , 22 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A c laim will have “f acia l plausibili ty

when the pla intiff pleads 23 fa c tua l c onte nt t hat a llo ws the c ourt

to d ra w the re a so na

ble inf e re nc e that th e de fe nd ant i s 24 liable for the misconduct alleg ed.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct . 1937, 1949 (2009). How ever , 25 “the plea dings of pro s e litigants should be construe d liberally , and should not be dismissed 26 unless it is clear that the pla intiff would not be entitled to relief under a ny set of fa cts that 27 could be pr oved consistent with the alleg ations.” Philips v. Girdich , 408 F.3d 124, 127 ( 2d3 1 Cir . 2 00 5) (c itatio ns and int e rn a l qu otatio n ma

rk s o mitte d) ; se e als o H

arris v . M ill s , 572 F.3d 2 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009). 3 Her e, the district cour t properly deter mined that Whit e fa iled to state a c laim upon 4 which re lief may be g rante d and, ac cording ly , dismiss ed her complaint pursuant to § 1915(e ). 5 In her a

mended c omplaint, W hite failed to name any defe ndants, listing only

“unknown 6 defe ndants.” More over, w ith respec t to the defe ndants named in he r orig inal complaint, she 7 failed in e ither the orig inal or ame nded complaint to state fa cts sufficie nt for the district cour t 8 to determine what, if any , actions ar e alleg ed to have been ta ken by eac h defe ndant so that the 9 court mig ht determine whether the claims have been pr operly pled. See I

qbal , 129 S.Ct . at 10 1949. 11 Insofar as White sought to bringan ac tion pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, private actor s 12 and

ins tit uti on s, su c h a s th e ho sp ita ls, nurs ingho me , a nd c e me te ry name d a s d e fe nd ants in 13 Whit e’s or igina l complaint, are g ener ally not proper § 1983 de fenda nts beca use they do not 14 act unde r color of state law. See A mer. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan , 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 15 (1999). Insofar as White alleg ed that the pr ivate def endants we re lice nsed by

the state, the 16 pr e se nc e of

state fu nd ingor re gulatio n, in t

he a bs e nc e of so me c on c e rt e d a c tio n w ithstate 17 officia ls, does not transform a private pa

rty ’s ac tions int o state ac tion. See B lum v. Y aretsky , 18 457 U.S. 991, 1004-05 (1982). 19 In addition, States are not “ persons” amena ble to suit under §1983. See W ill v. 20 Michigan De p’t of State Police , 491 U.S. 58, 69 (1989); Huminski v. Corsones , 396 F.3d 53, 21 70 (2d Cir. 2005). While cities and counties may be sued unde r § 1983, see M onell v. De

p’t of 22 So c . S

e rv s. , 4 36 U. S. 6 58 , 6 90 (1 97 8) ; Huminski , 396 F.3d at 70-71, Whit e fa iled to alleg e that 23 any

of the a lleg edly

unconstitutional actions were taken pur suant to an off icial policy

or4 1 custom, as re quired to state a § 1983 claim ag ainst a municipality , se e Mo ne ll , 436 U.S. at 2 69 1- 94 ; Rey nolds v. Giuliani , 506 F.3d 183, 190 ( 2d Cir. 2007). 3 Insofar as White sought to bringan ac tion pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985, she provided 4 mere ly

“conc lusory , vague, or g ener al alleg ations of conspira cy to deprive [her] of 5 constitutional rights,” which ar e insuffic ient to support a claim under § 1985. Sommer v

. 6 Dixon , 7 09 F .2 d 1 73 , 1 75 (2 d Ci r. 19 83 ); W e bb v . G oo rd, 340 F.3d 105, 111 ( 2d Cir. 2003). 7 Insofar

as she sought to state a cla im under 42 U.S.C. § 1986, this claim necessa rily failed 8 beca

use she f ailed to state a

claim under

§ 1985. See Graham v. He nderson , 89 F.3d 75, 82 9 (2 d Ci r. 19 96 ). Withre g ard to Wh ite ’s purp or

te d a c tio n und e r 4 2 U .S. C. § 19 81 , s he fa ile d to 10 alleg e any

fac ts to support such a claim, which r equire s a showingthat, inter alia, the plaintiff 11 is a member of a ra cial minority

g roup and the defe ndants intended to discriminate a g ainst her 12 based on he r ra ce. See M ian v. Donaldson, Lufkin &Jenre tte Sec. Corp. , 7 F.3d 1085, 1087 13 (2d Cir. 1993). L astly , insofar a s Whi te attempted to state a claim ag ainst the United States 14 pursuant to the F eder al Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq. , she fa iled to alleg e that she 15 had exhausted her administrative re medies as r equire d by that statute. See Ke ene Corp. v. 16 United States , 7 00 F .2 d 8 36 , 8 40 (2 d Ci r. 19 83 ); se e als o 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). 1 7 F o r

th e r e a s o n s s t at e d

a b o v e , th e j u d g m e n to f

th e d i s tr i c tc o urti s h e r e b y AF F IRM ED

. 18 19 20 FOR THE COURT: 21 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 22 23