Opinion
3:23-cv-00217-AR
04-05-2023
JOY MILLER, Plaintiff, v. WILLAMET DENTAL, Dr. Nicholas Skourtes; PROVIDENCE PARK ORTHOPEDICS, Dr. Sahra Winder; ASPEN DENTAL, Dr. Yun Huang, Emily Case; and SPORTS MEDICINE ORTHOPEDICS, Dr. Derek Lamprecht, Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
JEFF ARMISTEAD, United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Joy Miller, representing herself, filed this lawsuit on February 14, 2023, alleging unspecified claims against nine defendants: Willamet Dental (Willamette Dental Group), Dr.
Nicholas Skourtes; Providence Park Orthopedics, Dr. Sahra Winder; Aspen Dental, Dr. Yun Huang, and Emily Case; and Sports Medicine Orthopedics, Dr. Derek Lamprecht. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Because her Complaint did not allege a short and plain statement plausibly showing the basis for this court's jurisdiction and Miller's entitlement to relief, the court instructed Miller to file an amended complaint curing those deficiencies. (Order Amend, ECF No. 4.) Miller timely filed an amended complaint on March 24, 2023. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 5.) Her amended complaint, however, does not cure the deficiencies previously identified. The court recommends that this action be dismissed.
Miller also appears to continue to assert misconduct by the San Mateo Police Department, though she did not formally name it as a defendant.
LEGAL STANDARD
When a complaint is filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, Congress has directed that “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that” the action is: (1) “frivolous or malicious;” (2) “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;” or (3) “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Courts perform a preliminary screening to determine whether complaints brought by plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis raise cognizable claims. See, e.g., O'Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2008) (“After a prisoner applies for in forma pauperis status and lodges a complaint with the district court, the district court screens the complaint and determines whether it contains cognizable claims. If not, the district court must dismiss the complaint.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that “section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners”).
The court construes the pleadings of self-represented plaintiffs liberally and affords the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Self-represented plaintiffs are “entitled to notice of the complaint's deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.” Garity v. APWU Nat'l Lab. Org., 828 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir. 2016) (per curiam)).
Although leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires,” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2), the district court has “particularly broad” discretion to deny leave to amend where the plaintiff has already had one or more opportunities to amend a complaint. Chodos v. West Publishing, 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002). “Leave to amend need not be given if a complaint, as amended, is subject to dismissal.” Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 539 (9th Cir. 1989). “Futility of amendment can, by itself, justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend.” Kroessler v. CVS Health Corp., 977 F.3d 803, 814 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995)).
DISCUSSION
In her amended complaint, Miller offers somewhat more detailed factual allegations to support her claims that various defendants acted negligently or in a discriminatory manner when providing medical treatment for her teeth and knees; however, those allegations continue to be difficult for the court to follow. With respect to her teeth, Miller alleges that, around May 2019, Dr. Nicholas Skourtes performed a medical procedure “taking teeth two front tops” at the Willamette Dental Office. Miller also alleges that she visited Joy Marchenko apparently connected with Aspen Dental Group in Happy Valley, Oregon, for a consultation “hoping for a single tooth [to] be placed back to her [mouth]” by Dr. Huang and assistant Emily Case. Miller offers no other factual allegations about those procedures. With respect to her knees, Miller alleges that, at an unspecified time, she experienced an “unknown knee injury” that began to worsen and disable her. “[A]fter six months to a year[]” of losing her job at Moda Center, Miller visited Dr. Derek Lamprecht, an orthopedic doctor, and was then referred to Dr. Jenner Yeasts. Miller alleges that “she continued to [attend] visits recommended by” Dr. Lamprecht but “no treatment was successful in the pain factors” and she was “unable to return to any work” in 2018 or 2019. She requests $50,000 for “time lost” and $75,000 for the loss of her teeth.
Finally, Miller asserts that she was “abducted” by San Mateo police while on a visit to California. She alleges that they put a sack over her head and took her to jail, where her “tooth was pulled out.” Miller alleges that she is unable to eat because her “teeth are gone” and that she is unable to walk without a cane and may need a wheelchair.
Despite those new factual allegations, Miller's amended complaint remains deficient in several respects.
A. Sufficiency of Complaint
As explained in this court's Order to Amend, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) provides that 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). Thus, stating a claim for relief requires “the plaintiff [to] plead[ ] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes the pleadings of self-represented plaintiffs and accepts as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).
Miller's amended complaint does not satisfy Rule 8. As an initial matter, she offers no factual allegations suggesting misconduct by named defendants Sahra Winder and Providence Park Orthopedics. Additionally, although the court has liberally construed Miller's allegations about the medical treatment provided for her teeth and knees, those allegations continue to lack facts from which the court can infer that Dr. Skourtes, Dr. Huang, Emily Case, and Dr.
Lamprecht acted in a negligent or discriminatory manner. For instance, Miller offers no factual allegations about why Dr. Skourtes removed her teeth or whether Dr. Lamprecht performed any procedure on her knee. Thus, the court cannot plausibly infer that either defendant breached a duty of care to Miller. See Chapman v. Mayfield, 358 Or. 196, 205 (2015) (“Traditionally, the elements of common-law negligence required a plaintiff to plead and prove that the ‘defendant owed [the plaintiff] a duty, that [the] defendant breached that duty, and that the breach was the cause-in-fact of some legally cognizable harm to [the] plaintiff.'” (quoting Brennen v. City of Eugene, 285 Or. 401, 405 (1979)).). Miller likewise fails to indicate on what basis she believes that any defendant discriminated against her. Thus, Miller's amended complaint fails to state plausible claims for negligence and discrimination against any defendant.
B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Miller's amended complaint also does not establish the basis for this court's subject matter jurisdiction. As courts of limited jurisdiction, federal courts generally may only hear certain kinds of cases: (1) “federal question” cases and (2) “diversity of citizenship” cases. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal question cases involve claims arising under the Constitution or a federal law or treaty. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Diversity of citizenship cases require that the plaintiff be a citizen of a different state than all defendants and that “the matter in controversy” exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
As the plaintiff bringing this case in federal court, it is Miller's burden to establish that this court has either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction over each of her claims. See In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (S. Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (so stating). Miller's amended complaint does not satisfy that burden. Turning first to federal question jurisdiction, Miller's allegations of negligence arise under state law and, to the extent that she asserts a discrimination claim, she does not allege that such claim arises under the Constitution or federal law. Thus, Miller has not properly asserted federal question jurisdiction.
Likewise, Miller's amended complaint again fails to establish a basis for diversity jurisdiction. Although Miller alleges damages exceeding $75,000, her amended complaint offers no new allegations about the citizenship of the parties. Thus, the court continues to infer from the information provided on Miller's Civil Cover Sheet and amended complaint that she is a citizen of Oregon and that defendants (except the San Mateo Police Department) are also of Oregon citizenship. Because Miller offers no new facts about the citizenship of the parties, she has not plausibly alleged that she and defendants are from different states. The court therefore lacks diversity jurisdiction over this case.
C. Personal Jurisdiction
Finally, to the extent that Miller asserts claims against the San Mateo Police Department, her amended complaint lacks facts supporting the exercise of personal jurisdiction over that out-of-state defendant. As explained in this court's Order to Amend, personal jurisdiction refers to the court's power to render a judgment that will be enforceable against a defendant. See Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 283 (2014) (“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constrains a State's authority to bind a nonresident defendant to a judgment of its courts.”).
Where a defendant is not a citizen of the forum state (in this case, Oregon), a court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over that defendant unless the defendant has at least “minimum contacts” with the forum state. Id. (citing Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). The Ninth Circuit has adopted a three-part test to determine when a defendant has established minimum contacts with the forum state:
(1) The nonresident defendant must “purposefully direct” [its] activities toward the forum state or consummate some transaction with the forum by which [it] purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws;
(2) the claim must be one which arises out of or results from the defendant's forum-related activities; and
(3) exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004).
In her amended complaint, Miller alleges that, while she was visiting an acquaintance in California, officers from the San Mateo Police Department “abducted” her and took her to prison, where her tooth was pulled. Those allegations describe actions taking place entirely in California, and Miller does not otherwise allege that the San Mateo police defendants “purposefully direct[ed]” its activities toward Oregon. Thus, Miller's amended complaint fails to establish that the San Mateo police defendants had “minimum contacts” with Oregon sufficient to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over that out-of-state defendant.
CONCLUSION
Miller previously was provided an opportunity to correct the deficiencies in her complaint. In its Order to Amend, the court explained that Miller's complaint failed to state plausible claims for negligence or discrimination against any defendant and failed to establish this basis for this court's jurisdiction. Miller has not addressed those issues or offered any allegations that suggest her claims could be saved if granted leave to amend. Thus, the court concludes that additional factual details are not forthcoming and that leave to amend would be futile. Accordingly, the court recommends that Miller's amended complaint (ECF No. 4) be DISMISSED without leave to amend.
SCHEDULING ORDER
The Findings & Recommendation will be referred to a District Judge. Objections, if any, are due within 14 days. If no objections are filed, the Findings & Recommendation will go under advisement on that date. If objections are filed, a response is due within 14 days. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings & Recommendation will go under advisement.