Washington v. San Francisco General Hospital

District Court, N.D. California·Decided November 6, 2023·No. 3:23-cv-05505·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRETZ WASHINGTON, Case No. 23-cv-05505-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

10 SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL FORMA PAUPERIS AND SCREENING HOSPITAL, COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 11 § 1915(E) Defendant. 12

13 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Plaintiff Bretz Washington, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint and application to proceed 16 in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 2. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the 17 application but finds the complaint deficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). No later than December 18 6, 2023, Plaintiff must file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in this 19 screening order. If Plaintiff fails to cure these deficiencies, the case will be reassigned to a Unites 20 States district judge with a recommendation for dismissal. 21 II. BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff has filed a form complaint naming San Francisco General Hospital as the 23 defendant, after being admitted to San Francisco General Hospital for life-threatening injuries. 24 Compl. at 3, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges “the staff did save my life but upon gaining conscious 25 beging [sic] speaking From my Injuries one of the nurses say, I got to court in the Hospital I was 26 almost killed on the street of SF, They said they were ready with pepper spray on hand.” Id. at 3- 27 4. Plaintiff “did not like this treatment absolutely want to leave I had to be restrained. Next day 1 at hospital, I was Native American.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges “she just kept laughing and kept 2 repeating same Thing. The Next shift a older African American lady, I had asked to call the Nurse 3 she replied IF you is African a young brother, I say No so she can’t call.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff further 4 alleges: “A couple of days after the restrain was moved off, a Mexican American Therapy kept 5 stepping on my wraps I said to put them on again he said so what you going do about It. 6 Somebody had removed him From his position. A couple days later I got constipated For to much 7 electron so I Need pills to make my bowels move I said No For the anal the Nurse still stuck it up 8 my anal.” Id. 9 In the Jurisdiction section of the complaint, Plaintiff checked the box for federal question 10 jurisdiction. Id. at 2. Plaintiff lists one claim for “Civil Right,” alleging:

11 1. I’ve received hate From the staff I’ve been used For torture I was use humiliated abuse all this happen why I recovering From life 12 threatened Injuries.

13 2. I Feel like IF I ever went back my life ain’t worth saFeing [sic].

14 3. When I went back on October 16th of year 10/26/23 when I went back For a complaint For at First I was not allowed to go to the 15 InFormation booth. I had to wait at the Interest door, I said can I get some water she [illegible] Fountain. 16 Id. at 5. Plaintiff is “asking for $75,000 using as a human torture For a New system and For 17 prejudice and abuse.” Id. at 6. 18 III. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION 19 A district court may authorize the start of a civil action in forma pauperis if the court is 20 satisfied the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the filling fees required to pursue the lawsuit. See 21 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff submitted the required documentation demonstrating an inability 22 to pay the costs of this action, and it is evident from the application that the listed assets and 23 income are insufficient to enable payment of the fees. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the 24 application to proceed in forma pauperis. 25 IV. SUA SPONTE SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 26 A. Legal Standard 27 A court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service of process if it is 1 frivolous, fails to state a claim, or contains a complete defense to the action on its face. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e)(2) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 12(b)(6) regarding dismissals for failure to state a claim. See id.; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 4 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). As such, the complaint must allege facts that plausibly 5 establish each defendant’s liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). 6 “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to 7 draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. 8 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 9 A complaint must also comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires the 10 complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 11 to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The failure to comply with Rule 8 is a basis for dismissal that is 12 not dependent on whether the complaint is without merit. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 13 (9th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, even claims which are not on their face subject to dismissal under 14 Rule 12(b)(6) may still be dismissed for violating Rule 8(a). Id. 15 As Plaintiff is proceeding without representation by a lawyer, the Court must construe the 16 complaint liberally. See Garaux v. Pulley, 739 F.2d 437, 439 (9th Cir. 1984). However, it may 17 not add to the factual allegations in the complaint. See Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th 18 Cir. 1992). Litigants unrepresented by a lawyer remain bound by the Federal Rules and Local 19 Rules of this District. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-9(a). 20 B. Application 21 Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction 22 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 23 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). As such, they “have an independent obligation to ensure that they 24 do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction.” Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 25 428, 434 (2011); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that 26 district courts are “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [they] have subject matter 27 jurisdiction”). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil cases and the 1 at 377. 2 There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question jurisdiction 3 under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Washington v. San Francisco General Hospital, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Washington v. San Francisco General Hospital (Washington v. San Francisco General Hospital) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America
511 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Abbott v. United States
131 S. Ct. 18 (Supreme Court, 2010)
McHenry v. Renne
84 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
Garaux v. Pulley
739 F.2d 437 (Ninth Circuit, 1984)