Ensley v. Humboldt General Hospital et al

Filing 20

ORDER GRANTING # 14 Defendant Michael McDonald's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 3/10/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6

HORTON ENSLEY,

7

Plaintiff,

8
9

vs.

3:15-cv-00585-RCJ-WGC

HUMBOLDT GENERAL HOSPITAL et al.,

10

ORDER

Defendants.

11
12

This case involves various allegations of civil rights violations. Pending before the Court

13

is a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14). For the reasons given herein, the Court grants the motion.

14

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

15

Plaintiff Horton Ensley alleges that while suffering from an illness an ambulance took

16

him to the Humboldt General Hospital where medical staff gave him minor treatment and sent

17

him home in a taxi cab without further treatment. (Compl., 4–5, ECF No. 1). In another claim,

18

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Steve West, City Manager, allowed a private contractor to

19

destroy his property and historical sites. (Id. at 6). Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant ATT

20

Yahoo UVerse forced him to change from DSL service to UVerse, which caused him to lose

21

access to his e-mail and destroyed his website and consulting business. (Id. at 7). He alleges his

22

website was stolen to give access to high-tech weapons systems to foreign governments. (Id.).

23
24
25
26

1

1

Plaintiff makes the following claims: (1) refusal to provide medical assistance and

2

attempted murder; (2) violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) refusal to enforce or

3

investigate. Defendant Michael McDonald, Humboldt County District Attorney, moves the Court

4

to dismiss the case as to him pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

5

II.

6

LEGAL STANDARDS
A federal court must dismiss a case if it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof.

7

Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Subject-matter jurisdiction arises in federal

8

court if the plaintiff has asserted a cause of action under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

9

Alternatively, subject-matter jurisdiction is present if the plaintiff demonstrates that there is

10

complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds

11

$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

12

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the

13

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” in order to “give the defendant fair notice of

14

what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47

15

(1957). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) mandates that a court dismiss a cause of action

16

that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. When considering a motion to dismiss

17

under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, dismissal is appropriate only when the complaint

18

does not give the defendant fair notice of a legally cognizable claim and the grounds on which it

19

rests. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In considering whether the

20

complaint is sufficient to state a claim, the court will take all material allegations as true and

21

construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d

22

896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986). The court, however, is not required to accept as true allegations that are

23
24
25
26

2

1

merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences. See Sprewell v.

2

Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).

3

A formulaic recitation of a cause of action with conclusory allegations is not sufficient; a

4

plaintiff must plead facts pertaining to his own case making a violation “plausible,” not just

5

“possible.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–79 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

6

“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed and a pro se complaint, however inartfully

7

pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”

8

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Yet pro

9

se litigants are still “bound by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir.

10

1995). And where the litigant fails to follow rules of procedure, the case may be properly

11

dismissed. Id.

12

III.

13

ANALYSIS
Defendant Michael McDonald moves the Court to dismiss the case as to him for lack of

14

subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Plaintiff makes the following claim

15

against McDonald: “Stone walle[d] sheriffs dept report on attempted murder of plaintiff & aided

16

in unlawful se[i]zure of ward, for profit.” (Compl., ¶ 5, at 2). The Complaint makes no other

17

mention of McDonald.

18

“Victims have never had standing to appear as parties in criminal cases.” United States v.

19

Gamma Tech Indus., Inc., 265 F.3d 917, 923, n.6 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Linda R.S. v. Richard

20

D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973)). Thus, Plaintiff does not have standing to assert a claim of

21

attempted murder, and even if he did, his allegation against McDonald appears to address the

22

reporting of the alleged crime rather than the alleged crime itself. Plaintiff offers no other facts to

23

support his allegation against McDonald. Thus, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s attempted

24
25
26

3

1

murder claim under Rule 12(b)(6) as against McDonald, but it must also dismiss the claim

2

entirely for lack of standing, with prejudice. In addition, none of Plaintiff’s other allegations or

3

claims address “unlawful seizure of ward, for profit.” (Compl., ¶ 5, at 2). Without any supporting

4

facts or allegations, any claim of unlawful seizure of ward fails the standard under Rule 12(b)(6)

5

and is dismissed. The motion is granted.

6

CONCLUSION

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED: 1st day of March, 2016.
Dated this This 10th day of March, 2016.

10
11
12

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

4