Pagaling v. Napa State Hospital

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 4, 2023
• Docket: 5:22-cv-02202
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 MICHAEL JOSEPH PAGALING, 9 Case No. 22-cv-02202 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 10 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 11

12 NAPA STATE HOSPITAL, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint the Napa State Hospital 17 (“NSH”), where he is currently confined, and its employees. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. The Court 18 found the complaint stated a cognizable claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act 19 (“ADA”) but dismissed the complaint with leave to amend a supplemental state law claim 20 regarding his medical care. Dkt. No. 16. Plaintiff filed a “complaint,” which the Court 21 construes as an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 17. 22 23 DISCUSSION 24 A. Standard of Review 25 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 26 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 27 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 1 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 2 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 3 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 4 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 5 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 6 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 7 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 8 B. Plaintiff’s Claims 9 In the original complaint, Plaintiff alleged “disability discrimination” with respect 10 to his inability to access various services within NSH. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. He also alleged 11 that various staff members were liable for gross negligence. Id. at 2. The Court found the 12 ADA claim cognizable. Dkt. No. 16 at 2-3. However, Plaintiff’s claims of gross 13 negligence were not cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 3. Nevertheless, the Court advised 14 Plaintiff that it has supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, but that there were no 15 factual allegations against the individually named Defendants to establish a gross 16 negligence claim against them. Id. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended 17 complaint to attempt to allege sufficient facts to state such a claim. Id. 18 The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a subsequent action against Napa State Hospital 19 containing the same ADA claims as in the original complaint filed in this action. See 20 Pagaling v. Napa State Hospital, Case No. 22-04483 BLF (PR), Dkt. No. 1. That matter 21 has proceeded past initial screening and been ordered served on Defendants. Id., Dkt. No. 22 8. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s ADA claims are proceeding in that action. 23 In the amended complaint filed in this action, Plaintiff does not include any ADA 24 claims. Rather, he expresses concern regarding treatment he received in August 2022 for 25 his bladder pain and sediment in his urine. Dkt. No. 17 at 1. Plaintiff also claims that he 26 was recently told that he had irregular bladder function and the beginning signs of chronic 1 under the care of Dr. Trihn at the T-16 unit of NSH. Id. at 2. Plaintiff feels that his 2 treatment has been “neglected and compromised.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff claims Dr. Trihn has 3 been grossly negligent, and that he suffered from headaches, pain and diarrhea for the past 4 one and a half years under Dr. Trihn’s care. Dkt. No. 17 at 2. Plaintiff claims that since 5 receiving antibiotics from another doctor, the diarrhea and chronic headaches “went 6 away.” Id. at 2. 7 The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims under 28 U.S.C. § 8 1367(a) “‘that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that 9 they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States 10 Constitution.’” See Executive Software North America, Inc. v. United States District 11 Court, 24 F.3d 1545, 1555 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)). Nonetheless, 12 pendent jurisdiction “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s rights,” Int’l College of 13 Surgeons, 522 U.S.at 172 (quoting United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 14 (1966)), and § 1367(c) codifies the district’s court’s discretion to decline jurisdiction over 15 pendent claims by considering and weighing at every stage of the litigation, the values of 16 judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, see id. at 173. 17 Supplemental state law claims must be dismissed when the district court has no 18 underlying original jurisdiction over the federal claims. See Herman Family Revocable 19 Trust v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 806-07 (9th Cir. 2001) (where district court determined 20 it lacked admiralty jurisdiction, it had no power to retain supplemental state law claims). 21 This must be distinguished from the district court’s discretionary authority to retain 22 jurisdiction over state law claims where it has dismissed on the merits federal claims over 23 which it did have original jurisdiction. Id. at 806. 24 Plaintiff was advised that claims not included in the amended complaint are no 25 longer claims and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer 26 defendants. Dkt. No. 16 at 6, citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th 1 || Therefore, the Court has no basis for original jurisdiction over this action. Furthermore, 2 || Plaintiff was already afforded one opportunity to amend, and the Court finds no good 3 || cause to grant him another opportunity. Wagh v. Metris Direct, Inc., 363 F.3d 821, 830 4 || (9th Cir. 2003) (district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend particularly broad where 5 || plaintiff has previously filed an amended complaint); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261. 6 || Accordingly, this action must be dismissed because the Court has no power to retain 7 || supplemental state law claims. See Herman Family Revocable Trust, 254 F.3d at 806-07. 8 || The proper avenue to pursue his gross negligence claim against Dr. Trihn is in state court. 9 10 CONCLUSION 11 For the foregoing reasons, the action is DISMISSED for lack of federal 2 jurisdiction. Plaintiff must file his state law claims in state court. E 13 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. S 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 || Dated: _ January 4, 2023 feliiihacncen _ BETH LABSON FREEMAN 16 United States District Judge

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PRO-SEBLFCR 22102202Pagaling dismEAC 26 27