Dye v. Medical Board of California et al

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ;granting 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; adopting Report and Recommendations as to recommending Dismissal of this action re 11 Report and Recommendations. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2016)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

RICHARD B. DYE,
Plaintiff,

6
7
8

vs.

Case No.: 16-cv-03942 YGR
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS; DISMISSING CASE WITH
PREJUDICE

MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

9

Defendants.
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Ryu’s Report and Recommendation recommending

12

dismissal of this action sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)(B). (Dkt. No. 11.) More

13

particularly, the Report concludes plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim

14

upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff objected to the Report.

15

(Dkt. No. 15.) For the reasons set forth in Judge Ryu’s Report, and for the reasons highlighted below,

16

plaintiff’s objections are without merit.

17

Plaintiff raised a series of objections attacking Judge Ryu’s authority to issue her Report after

18

plaintiff declined magistrate jurisdiction over the case. These objections are not well-founded. The

19

process used for this case was routine. Plaintiff’s declination to proceed before a magistrate judge did

20

not divest Judge Ryu of her statutory authority to issue a Report subject to the Court’s review. See 28

21

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court conducted its own independent analysis of the deficiencies in the

22

complaint and accepts the recommendations of Judge Ryu based thereon.

23

Plaintiff also argues his claims are not time-barred as the two-year statute of limitations did

24

not accrue until he “serendipitously” discovered exculpatory evidence on July 15, 2014. The alleged

25

exculpatory evidence is a published decision, Sinaiko v. Superior Ct., 122 Cal.App.4th 1133 (2004),

26

in which the California Court of Appeal vacated the decision of Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)

27

Astle – the same ALJ who recommended revocation of plaintiff’s medical license – concluding that

28

the administrative proceedings there were unfair as a matter of law. According to plaintiff, the

1

Sinaiko decision evidences a pattern of misbehavior by ALJ Astle of which he was previously

2

unaware. Plaintiff’s argument that his claim did not accrue until he discovered the Sinaiko decision

3

fails as a matter of law. Plaintiff is correct that a federal civil rights claim “accrues when the plaintiff

4

knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.” Knox v. Davis, 260 F.3d

5

1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 2013). However, plaintiff had reason to know of the Sinaiko decision when it

6

was published in 2004 – two years prior to his final appeal of ALJ Astle’s opinion recommending

7

revocation. This is not an instance where plaintiff was left without access to the decision absent

8

disclosure from the opposing party. That plaintiff did not find the Sinaiko decision until 2014 is of no

9

moment when he “ha[d] reason to know” of it an entire decade before in 2004. Id. Moreover, the

Northern District of California

Court is not persuaded that plaintiff alleged discovery of a new constitutional injury in July 2014 such

11

United States District Court

10

that a new claim plausibly accrued at that time.

12

In sum, Judge Ryu’s Report is correct, well-reasoned and thorough, and the Court adopts it in

13

every respect. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Report and discussed herein, the above-

14

captioned action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Having reviewed plaintiff’s objections to the

15

Report, the Court is persuaded that amendment of the complaint would be futile. Plaintiff’s claims

16

are plainly barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as the crux of his complaint is an attack on a state

17

court judgment affirming the Medical Board decision to revoke his license. The statute of limitations

18

provides equally independent grounds to find amendment would be futile.

19

This Order terminates Case Number 16-cv-3942.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Date: September 28, 2016

22
23
24

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

2