Sapien v. Chappelle et al
Filing
4
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 1 ) ; FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/21/2017. (Lafata, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RICHARD C. SAPIEN,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
CASE NO. 1:16-cv-0910-DAD-MJS
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
v.
(ECF No. 1)
AUDREY CHAPPELLE, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE
WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
17
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed on June 24,
18
19
20
2016. Plaintiff’s complaint is before the Court for screening.
I.
The in forma pauperis statute provides, “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Screening Requirement
portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if
the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
II.
Pleading Standard
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
1
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
2
662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
3
Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief
4
that is plausible on its face.” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere
5
possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are
6
accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78.
7
III.
Plaintiff’s Allegations
8
Plaintiff brings this action against Audrey Chappelle, “Sedgwick Claim
9
Management [unintelligible]”; Jeremy Lusk, Attorney; Tobin-Lucks LLP; Foster Farms,
10
Cherry Plant, Inc.; and Stericycle, Inc.
Plaintiff’s allegations, which are factually sparse, may be fairly summarized as
11
12
follows:
Plaintiff, who worked at Foster Farms “Cherry Plant” during an unspecified period
13
14
of time, broke his collar bone on November 15, 2011.
15
Plaintiff accuses (1) Stericycle of failing to inform Plaintiff about a “Q.M.E.” report
16
from July 5, 2007, and (2) Foster Farms of failing to inform Plaintiff about a “Q.M.E.”
17
report from October 13, 2014. According to Plaintiff, a “Q.M.E. is a certified doctor that
18
dispute [sic] difference between emplo[y]er and employee and always be followed with
19
the request of the Q.M.E. for the employee.” Compl. at 6.
20
Plaintiff asserts jurisdiction is proper in this Court under diversity citizenship and
21
federal question—specifically, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
22
(“HIPAA”).
23
24
25
Plaintiff does not specify the relief that he seeks.
IV.
Analysis
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power
26
authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It
27
is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of
28
2
1
establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v.
2
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted).
3
Federal courts are constitutionally required to raise issues related to federal
4
subject matter jurisdiction and may do so sua sponte. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S.
5
500, 514 (2006). A federal court must satisfy itself of its jurisdiction over the subject
6
matter before proceeding to the merits of the case. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526
7
U.S. 574, 577, 583 (1999). Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is
8
properly before the Court. See Thornhill Publ'g Co. v. General Tel. & Elec. Corp., 594
9
F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979).
10
The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, confer “federal
11
question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal question jurisdiction requires
12
that the complaint (1) arise under a federal law or the U. S. Constitution, (2) allege a
13
“case or controversy” within the meaning of Article III, § 2 of the U. S. Constitution, or (3)
14
be authorized by a federal statute that both regulates a specific subject matter and
15
confers federal jurisdiction. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962).
16
Plaintiff asserts that this case is before the Court pursuant to HIPAA. HIPAA does
17
not provide a private cause of action. Webb v. Smart Document Solutions, LLC, 499
18
F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2007) (“HIPAA itself does not provide for a private right of
19
action”) (citing 65 Fed. Reg. 82601 (Dec. 28, 2000)). There does not appear to be any
20
other source of federal jurisdiction under the allegations asserted in the Complaint.
21
To invoke the Court's diversity jurisdiction, a plaintiff must specifically allege the
22
diverse citizenship of all parties and that the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28
23
U.S.C. § 1332(a); Bautista v. Pan American World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th
24
Cir. 1987). Section 1332 of Title 28 requires complete diversity of citizenship and the
25
presence “of a single plaintiff from the same State as a single defendant deprives the
26
district court of original diversity jurisdiction over the entire action.” Abrego Abrego v. The
27
Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).
28
3
1
It appears that diversity jurisdiction is also lacking. Plaintiff has not specified the
2
amount in controversy in the pleading. In addition, Plaintiff has not shown that the parties
3
are completely diverse. To the contrary, the Complaint indicates that Plaintiff and at least
4
some of the Defendants are residents of California. (Compl. at 2-3.)
5
6
Accordingly, the Complaint must be dismissed.
V.
Conclusion and Order
7
The Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Noll v.
8
Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff opts to amend, he must
9
address the deficiencies noted in this Screening Order. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78.
10
Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its
11
face.’” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
12
Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it
13
is not for the purposes of adding new claims. George, 507 F.3d at 607. Plaintiff should
14
carefully read this Screening Order and focus his efforts on curing the deficiencies set
15
forth above.
16
Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended
17
complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule,
18
an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d
19
55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no
20
longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an
21
original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be
22
sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First
23
Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed
24
under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff's amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P.
25
8(a). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a
26
right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations
27
omitted).
28
4
1
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. Plaintiff’s June 24, 2016, Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend;
3
2. Within thirty (30) days from the service of this order, Plaintiff shall a first
4
amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this
5
Screening Order;
6
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of his complaint filed on
7
June 24, 2016, and a copy of the Pro Se Packet; and
8
4. If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint or otherwise respond to this
9
Order, the Court will dismiss this action, with prejudice, for failure to comply
10
with a court order and failure to prosecute.
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
March 21, 2017
/s/
14
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?