Lauricella v. Cordis Corporation

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 5/17/07. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2007)

Download PDF
Lauricella v. Cordis Corporation Doc. 10 Case 4:07-cv-02016-SBA Document 10 Filed 05/18/2007 Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 v. CORDIS CORPORATION, Defendant. / INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, an inmate at the Santa Clara County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under JOSEPH LAURICELLA, Plaintiff, No. C 07-02016 SBA (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Docket nos. 2, 5) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Cordis Corporation1 for manufacturing a "coronary artery drug-eluting 17 stent for use as a heart artery implant in heart surgery," which he alleges "caused [him] to suffer 18 grievous, serious, and sever [sic] injuries, and sustain[] serious and permanent injuries to his health." 19 He has also filed an application for in forma pauperis status and a request for confirmation of pro se 20 status. Venue is proper in this district because the acts complained of occurred in Santa Clara 21 County, which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 22 For the reasons discussed below, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims as not cognizable 23 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 24 25 I. 26 Legal Standard A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks DISCUSSION 27 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 28 1 Plaintiff alleges that Cordis Corporation is affiliated with the Johnson and Johnson Company. Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:07-cv-02016-SBA Document 10 Filed 05/18/2007 Page 2 of 5 1 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that 2 are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary 3 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 4 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 5 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and 6 (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of State law. West v. 7 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). "'[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim 8 unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim 9 which would entitle him to relief.'" Terracom v. Valley National Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 558 (9th Cir. 10 1995) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). Pro se pleadings must be liberally United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). A claim that is 12 totally incomprehensible may be dismissed as frivolous as it is without an arguable basis in law. See 13 Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 641 (9th Cir. 1989). 14 II. 15 Legal Claims Plaintiff names a private Defendant, Cordis Corporation. This Defendant cannot be sued 16 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant was acting under color of state law. Action taken by 18 a private organization may be under color of state law "if, though only if, there is such a close nexus 19 between the State and the challenged action that seemingly private behavior may be fairly treated as 20 that of the State itself." Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S. 21 288, 295 (2001) (internal quotations omitted). The Supreme Court has found state action when a 22 challenged activity results from the State's exercise of coercive power, when the State provides 23 significant encouragement for the activity, or when a private actor operates as a willful participant in 24 joint activity with the State. See id. The Court finds that Plaintiff alleges no facts suggesting the 25 conduct of Cordis Corporation could fairly be treated as conduct of the State itself. 26 Because Plaintiff's allegations against Defendant involve purely private conduct, they do not 27 meet the standards for cognizable claims under § 1983. See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 28 2 Case 4:07-cv-02016-SBA Document 10 Filed 05/18/2007 Page 3 of 5 1 (1980) (a private citizen does not act under color of state law, an essential element of a § 1983 2 action); Ouzts v. Maryland Nat'l Ins. Co., 505 F.3d 547, 559 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 3 949 (1975). 4 5 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are not cognizable and are 6 DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment, terminate all pending 7 motions (docket nos. 2, 5) and close the file. No filing fee is due. 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California This Order terminates Docket nos. 2 and 5. IT IS SO ORDERED. SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge 10 DATED: 5/17/07 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.07\Lauricella2016.dismiss.wpd 3 Case 4:07-cv-02016-SBA Document 10 Filed 05/18/2007 Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 KAMAL A. SEFELDEEN, 7 8 v. Plaintiff, Case Number: CV07-01289 SBA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 BOARD OF PRISON TERMS et al, 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District 12 Court, Northern District of California. 13 That on May 18, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said 14 envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 15 16 17 Kamal A. Sefeldeen San Quentin State Prison 18 #D-65574 CSP-San Quentin 19 San Quentin, CA 94974 20 Dated: May 18, 2007 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.07\Lauricella2016.dismiss.wpd 4 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk Defendant. / Case 4:07-cv-02016-SBA Document 10 Filed 05/18/2007 Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.07\Lauricella2016.dismiss.wpd 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?