Pinzon v. Mendocino Coast Clinics Inc. et al
Filing
62
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 57 Motion to Dismiss. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
ABRAHAM G. PINZON,
Case No. 14-cv-05504-JST
Plaintiff,
8
v.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES,
MEDICAL DENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION, et al.,
Re: ECF No. 57
Defendants.
12
Before the Court is Defendant Department of Health Care Services’ Motion to Dismiss.
13
14
As explained below, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss because Plaintiff has failed to plead a
15
plausible claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
16
I.
17
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Abraham G. Pinzon filed his initial complaint in this action on December 16,
18
2014. ECF No. 1. In the operative complaint, filed on January 6, 2015, against Defendants
19
Mendocino Coast Clinics, Inc. and the State of California’s Department of Health Care Services,
20
Medi-Cal Dental Services Division (“DHCS”), Pinzon alleges that Dr. Nash, a dentist at
21
Mendocino Coast Clinics, performed unwanted dental services, ruining three of his teeth, so that
22
he would be forced to return to the clinic for dentures. ECF No. 6 at 2-3. Pinzon, who is an
23
African-American man with a mental illness, describes Nash’s malpractice as racial discrimination
24
and the product of “animus, fear, and hate.” Id. at 2, 4. He also alleges that denying him the
25
opportunity to participate in making treatment decisions deprived him of his right to equal access
26
to health care services. Id. at 4, 6. Pinzon alleges that when he called Denti-Cal to lodge a
27
complaint, Denti-Cal employees hung up on him and retaliated against him by threatening his
28
eligibility for Medi-Cal benefits. Id. at 3. Pinzon describes Medi-Cal’s failure to respond to his
1
complaint as “an unspoken approval” of Mendocino Coast Clinics’ conduct. Id. at 4. Plaintiff
2
asserts claims for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); violation of the Civil
3
Rights Act of 1964; and violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
4
1996 (“HIPAA”). Id. at 1, 3.
On August 20, 2015, this Court granted a Motion by the United States to substitute itself in
5
place of defendants Mendocino Coast Clinics, Inc. pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 233, and to
7
dismiss all claims against the United States for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to Plaintiff’s
8
failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, as required under the Federal Tort Claims Act.1
9
See ECF No. 52. This left only the claims against DHCS remaining in the case. On October 14,
10
2015, this Court issued an Order of Service, noting that Pinzon had attempted to serve the DHCS
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
himself by certified mail, which he is unable to do under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(2).
12
ECF No. 53. Because Pinzon has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, see ECF No. 5,
13
the Court ordered summons and service be issued to DHCS, ECF No. 53.
DHCS filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on November 25, 2015. ECF No. 57. The
14
15
motion argues for dismissal both because the Court lacks jurisdiction due to the DHCS’s
16
sovereign immunity, and because the complaint fails to plead a plausible claim. See id. Pinzon
17
did not respond to the motion.2
18
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
19
Under Ninth Circuit precedent, this Court must resolve an Eleventh Amendment immunity
20
claim before reaching the merits. See Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Brown, 674 F.3d
21
1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2012).
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
22
23
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
24
662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
25
26
27
28
1
The order also noted that Plaintiff’s reference to HIPAA would not be addressed because HIPPA
itself provides no private right of action. See ECF No. 52 at 5 n.2 (quoting Webb v. Smart
Document Solutions, LLC, 499 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th Cir. 2007)).
2
Pinzon did file a “Notice” on December 11, 2015, but it does not respond to the motion to
dismiss.
2
1
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
2
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate
3
only where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable
4
legal theory.” Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008).
5
The Court must “accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings
6
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th
7
Cir. 2005).
8
III.
9
DISCUSSION
The Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provides that the
“judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by
12
citizens or subjects of any foreign state.” “[I]n the absence of consent a suit in which the State or
13
one of its agencies or departments is named as the defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh
14
Amendment.” Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). The
15
Eleventh Amendment bars suits against both state agencies and the state itself. See P.R. Aqueduct
16
& Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993). “This jurisdictional bar
17
applies regardless of the nature of the relief sought.” Id.; see also Shaw v. State of California
18
Dep’t of Alcoholic Beverages, 788 F.2d 600, 603-04 (9th Cir. 1986).
19
Plaintiff states that his claims arise under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
20
28 C.F.R. § 35, and Title II of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a(d), 2000a-1, and 2000a-2.
21
ECF No. 6 at 1. DHCS asserts that these claims must be dismissed because it has not waived
22
sovereign immunity for them. ECF No. 57 at 7.
23
Under the Eleventh Amendment, state agencies possess sovereign immunity from suit
24
unless Congress has “unequivocally expresse[d] its intent to abrogate the immunity” and has acted
25
“pursuant to a valid exercise of power.” Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 55
26
(1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Pinzon does not address the issues of
27
jurisdiction or sovereign immunity in his complaint and does not respond to DHCS’s motion.
28
Nevertheless, the Court notes that the Supreme Court has previously held that Congress has
3
1
validly abrogated state sovereign immunity for claims under Title II of the ADA based on state
2
conduct that allegedly violates the Fourteenth Amendment. United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S.
3
151, 159 (2006). DHCS argues that Pinzon’s claims are still barred because he has requested
4
monetary damages but is only entitled to prospective relief. See ECF No. 57 at 7. The Supreme
5
Court has held the contrary, however. Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 186-187 (2002) (holding
6
that punitive damages are unavailable under 42 U.S.C. § 12133 but that monetary damages remain
7
available); see also Georgia, 546 U.S. at 159 (holding that Title II of the ADA “creates a private
8
cause of action for damages.” (emphasis added)).3
That said, while it is possible to bring an ADA claim for a Fourteenth Amendment
10
violation that is beyond the jurisdictional bar of the Eleventh Amendment, Pinzon has not
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
plausibly done so here. While he alleges generally that the dental care provided by Dr. Nash and
12
his clinic constituted discrimination against him based on his race and disability, he offers no
13
factual allegations to support this conclusion. See ECF No. 6 at 2-3. More importantly, he does
14
not allege that DHCS was involved in the alleged discrimination, other than making a vague
15
statement that DHCS’s alleged failure to sufficiently respond to his complaint constituted
16
“unspoken approval.” Id. As noted by DHCS, these allegations are not sufficient to support a
17
plausible claim of discrimination by the state. See ECF No. 57 at 8-10.
18
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed pursuant to
19
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). DHCS’s motion to dismiss is granted without prejudice. Any amended
20
complaint must provide plausible support for both the discrimination alleged to have occurred and
21
DHCS’s involvement in that discrimination.4
22
3
23
24
25
26
27
28
DHCS’s citation to Edelman v. Jordan, 15 U.S. 651 (1974) is also unavailing. Edelman held that
the doctrine of Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), which states that certain forms of injunctive
relief against state officials are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment, does not allow federal
courts to order states to repay withheld funds. See Edelman, 15 U.S. at 667-669. This discussion
is not relevant when the Supreme Court has already held that Congress abrogated sovereign
immunity under Title II of the ADA.
4
DHCS has also filed a Request for Judicial Notice of four documents. ECF No. 58. Plaintiff has
not responded to or opposed the request. Three of them are government publications: an allcounty policy letter and two Denti-Cal Bulletins. Id. The Court may take judicial notice of these
documents as “matters of public record.” Fed. R. Evid. 201. The final document is a previous
complaint filed by Pinzon. ECF No. 58. The Court may take judicial notice of court filings.
United States v. Black, 482 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). DHCS’s Request for Judicial Notice
4
1
CONCLUSION
2
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is granted without prejudice. Any
3
4
5
amended pleading must be filed within 21 days of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 14, 2016
6
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
is granted.
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?