Bishop v. Wicks

Filing 14

ORDER granting Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1 ) is dismissed with permission to file an Amended Complaint by June 29, 2016. If Plaintiff does not file an Amended Complaint by June 29, 2016, the Clerk shall dismiss this action without further Order of this Court (see document for further details). Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 6/10/16. (KGM)

1

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Ernest Bishop,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-16-08087-PCT-JJT

Bridget Wicks,

13

Defendant.

14
15

At issue is pro se Plaintiff Ernest Bishop’s Application to Proceed in District

16

Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2). Having determined that Plaintiff is

17

unable to pay the Court’s fees, the Court grants the Application. However, as set forth

18

below, upon screening Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1, Compl.) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 1915(e)(2), the Court has found that Plaintiff has not satisfied the pleading requirements

20

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court therefore dismisses the Complaint with

21

permission to file an Amended Complaint by June 29, 2016.

22

I.

LEGAL STANDARDS

23

A.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

24

For cases in which a party is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis—that is, the

25

party lacks the means to pay court fees—Congress provided that a district court “shall

26

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines” that the “allegation of poverty is

27

untrue” or that the “action or appeal” is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on

28

which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

1

from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis

2

proceedings. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). “It is also clear that

3

section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma

4

pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.” Id. at 1127.

5

B.

6

Unlike state courts, federal courts only have jurisdiction over a limited number of

7

cases, and those cases typically involve either a controversy between citizens of different

8

states (“diversity jurisdiction”) or a question of federal law (“federal question

9

jurisdiction”). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. The United States Supreme Court has stated

10

that a federal court must not disregard or evade the limits on its subject matter

11

jurisdiction. Owen Equip. & Erections Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). Thus, a

12

federal court is obligated to inquire into its subject matter jurisdiction in each case and to

13

dismiss a case when subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co.,

14

372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Pleading in Federal Court

15

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) provides that a complaint must include “a

16

short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” and “a short and

17

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” In other words,

18

to proceed in federal court, a plaintiff must allege enough in the complaint for the court to

19

conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction. See Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,

20

5 Fed. Practice & Procedure § 1206 (3d ed. 2014). The complaint must also contain

21

“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

22

face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

23

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

24

II.

ANALYSIS

25

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendant Bridget Wicks, a Nurse Practitioner at

26

the Guidance Center in Flagstaff, Arizona, conducted an HIV test of Plaintiff despite his

27

explicit statement that he did not want to be tested. (Compl. at 2–4.) He alleges that

28

Ms. Wicks violated his civil rights in so doing. (Compl. at 3–4.) Applying a benefit-of-

-2-

1

any-doubt standard to this claim, the Court assumes that Plaintiff attempts to bring a claim

2

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides for a private right of action against a state actor for

3

a constitutional violation.

4

To state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must first allege state action. Determining

5

whether an entity is subject to suit under § 1983 is the “same question posed in cases

6

arising under the Fourteenth Amendment: is the alleged infringement of federal rights

7

fairly attributable to the [government]?” Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr., 192

8

F.3d 826, 835 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 838 (1982)).

9

For a court to answer this question in the affirmative, a plaintiff must show that two

10

requirements are met: (1) the deprivation to the plaintiff by the entity “must result from a

11

governmental policy,” and (2) “the party charged with the deprivation must be a person

12

who may fairly be said to be a [governmental] actor.” Id.

13

Here, the allegations in the Complaint do not meet either requirement. The

14

Complaint contains no allegations that the procedures used by Ms. Wicks are part of a

15

governmental policy. Moreover, Ms. Wicks, is, based on the information available to the

16

Court, not a governmental actor. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to allege a state action

17

sufficient to raise a § 1983 claim. See id. at 836-43.

18

The Court cannot discern any other federal claim based on Plaintiff’s Complaint.

19

The Court also does not find that the Complaint alleges any state law claim relying on

20

diversity jurisdiction, but the Court notes that such a claim would fail because Plaintiff

21

has not alleged that his claim involves a controversy between citizens of different states.

22

Rather, he only alleges that he lives in Arizona and that the incident and Defendant’s

23

actions took place in Arizona.

24

In sum, Plaintiff’s claims fail because he does not allege facts sufficient for the

25

Court to find it has subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. Plaintiff may amend his

26

Complaint to the extent he can allege subject matter jurisdiction by either showing his

27

claims involve a controversy between citizens of different states, and the amount in

28

controversy exceeds $75,000, or a question of federal law, identifying the specific claim

-3-

1

and what statute applies, if any. Plaintiff may only amend his Complaint to allege a

2

§ 1983 claim if he can allege facts showing state action.

3
4
5
6
7
8

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed with
permission to file an Amended Complaint by June 29, 2016.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not file an Amended Complaint
by June 29, 2016, the Clerk shall dismiss this action without further Order of this Court.

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects to file an Amended Complaint,

10

he may not serve it on Defendant until and unless the Court screens the Amended

11

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If and when the Court gives Plaintiff leave

12

to serve an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff shall be responsible for service and may do so by

13

request for waiver under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.

14

Dated this 10th day of June, 2016.

15
16
17

Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-