Case Name: John A. SCHNECK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David E. YAMAMOTO, Chief Executive Officer Sutter North Medical Foundation, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-15
Citations: 475 F. App'x 256
Docket Number: No. 11-15893
Parties: John A. SCHNECK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David E. YAMAMOTO, Chief Executive Officer Sutter North Medical Foundation, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 256–256

Head Matter:
John A. SCHNECK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David E. YAMAMOTO, Chief Executive Officer Sutter North Medical Foundation, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-15893.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 8, 2012.
Filed Aug. 15, 2012.
John A. Schneck, Williams, CA, pro se.
Norman V. Prior, Thomas Leroy Rior-dan, Porter Scott, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM.
John A. Schneck appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from his termination as a patient by Sutter North Medical Foundation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Caviness v. Horizon Cmty. Learning Ctr., Inc., 590 F.3d 806, 811-12 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Schneck's § 1983 action because Schneck failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant was acting under color of state law. See id. at 812, 815 (state action is a required element of a § 1983 claim, and mere fact that a private entity performs a function that serves the public does not make its acts state action); Ascherman v. Presbyterian Hosp. of Pac. Med. Ctr., Inc., 507 F.2d 1103, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1974) (private hospital's receipt of public funds and tax exempt status as a charitable organization insufficient to establish state action).
Schneck's contentions regarding judicial bias are unpersuasive. See Taylor v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (adverse rulings alone are insufficient to demonstrate judicial bias).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.