(PC) Gonzalez v. James

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAIME CESAR GONZALEZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-01505 JLT SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DISMISSSING DEFENDANTS 14 JOON KEE JAMES, et al. KURCZESKI AND EDWARDS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 15 Defendants. (Docs. 27, 28) 16 17 Jaime Cesar Gonzalez seeks to hold the defendants—including Joon Kee James, Sabrina 18 Kurczeski (erroneously named as Sabrina Kurezeski), and Gerald Edwards—liable for deliberate 19 indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs when he was taken to the hospital emergency 20 room for an evaluation following an altercation with correctional officers at California City 21 Correctional Facility.1 (See Doc. 9.) Edwards and Kurczeski seek dismissal of the claims raised 22 against them pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2 23 (Doc. 27.) Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. 24 The magistrate judge observed that “private doctors, nurses, and hospitals who have not 25 assumed the State's obligation to provide medical care to inmates, are not state actors just because 26 1 Previously, the Court granted the motion to dismiss brought by Vu Quang Huynh. (Doc. 21.) 27 2 Defendants James, Kurczeski and Edwards initially failed to respond to the complaint and the Court entered default. (Doc. 17.) Edwards and Kurczeski moved to set aside the entry of default, and the Court granted the request. (Docs. 28 22, 25.) Joon Kee James did not move to set aside entry of default or otherwise respond to the complaint. 1 they provide one-off medical treatment to an inmate.” (Doc. 28 at 4-5, citing e.g., West v. Atkins, 2 487 U.S. 42, 50-54 (1988); Felix v. Casey, 2021 WL 2209828, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 1, 2021).) 3 The magistrate judge found there were “insufficient allegations that Defendants Kurczeski and 4 Edwards are contract medical professionals with California City Correctional Facility, the 5 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), or … otherwise employed by 6 the State.” (Id. at 5.) The magistrate judge found “Kurczeski and Edwards are employed by 7 Adventist Health, Tehachapi,” and “were contacted to perform ‘emergency’ room services” for 8 Plaintiff. (Id.) Given the lack of allegations supporting a conclusion Kurczeski and Edwards 9 acted under state law, the magistrate judge found the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over 10 the claims against them. (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge declined to reach the alternative 11 argument raised under Rule 12(b)(6) and recommended the Court grant the motion to dismiss 12 under Rule 12(b)(1). (Id. at 6.) 13 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations upon the parties and notified them 14 that any objections must be filed within 14 days of the date of service. (Doc. 28 at 6.) The Court 15 also informed Plaintiff the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 16 waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) 17 Plaintiff did not file objections and the time to do so has passed. 18 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court performed a de novo review of this case. 19 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 20 are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 21 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on January 28, 2025 (Doc. 28) are 22 ADOPTED in full. 23 2. The motion to dismiss brought by Defendants Kurczeski and Edwards (Doc. 17) is 24 GRANTED under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack 25 of subject matter jurisdiction. 26 3. Defendants Kurczeski and Edwards are DISMISSED as defendants. 27 /// 28 /// 1 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket. 2 5. The matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: _ February 25, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28