Opinion
23-cv-05505-TSH
12-12-2023
BRETZ WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL, Defendant.
REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT WITH REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THOMAS S. HIXSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I. INTRODUCTION
On November 6, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff Bretz Washington's application to proceed in forma pauperis and screened the complaint, finding it deficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). ECF No. 6. The Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by December 6, warning that failure to cure the deficiencies would result in the case being reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation for dismissal. Plaintiff failed to respond. As not all parties have filed consents to proceed before a magistrate judge, the undersigned directs the Clerk of Court to reassign this case to a district judge with the recommendation that Plaintiff's case be dismissed for the following reasons.
II. BACKGROUND
On October 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a form complaint naming San Francisco General Hospital as the defendant. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges he was admitted to SF General for lifethreatening injuries and that “the staff did save my life but upon gaining conscious beging [sic] speaking From my Injuries one of the nurses say, I got to court in the Hospital I was almost killed on the street of SF, They said they were ready with pepper spray on hand.” Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff “did not like this treatment absolutely want to leave I had to be restrained. Next day young lady of Asian American kept saying to me, we Need a black leadership, I did Tell the staff at hospital, I was Native American.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges “she just kept laughing and kept repeating same Thing. The Next shift a older African American lady, I had asked to call the Nurse she replied IF you is African a young brother, I say No so she can't call.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff further alleges: “A couple of days after the restrain was moved off, a Mexican American Therapy kept stepping on my wraps I said to put them on again he said so what you going do about It. Somebody had removed him From his position. A couple days later I got constipated For to much electron so I Need pills to make my bowels move I said No For the anal the Nurse still stuck it up my anal.” Id.
In the Jurisdiction section of the complaint, Plaintiff checked the box for federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 2. Plaintiff lists one claim for “Civil Right,” alleging:
1. I've received hate From the staff I've been used For torture I was use humiliated abuse all this happen why I recovering From life threatened Injuries.
2. I Feel like IF I ever went back my life ain't worth saFeing [sic].
3. When I went back on October 16th of year 10/26/23 when I went back For a complaint For at First I was not allowed to go to the InFormation booth. I had to wait at the Interest door, I said can I get some water she [illegible] Fountain.Id. at 5. Plaintiff is “asking for $75,000 using as a human torture For a New system and For prejudice and abuse.” Id. at 6.
On November 6 the Court found Plaintiff's complaint deficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for two reasons. First, the Court was unable to discern whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, as Plaintiff did not identify any specific federal statute or constitutional right that had been violated and the allegations in the complaint indicate that all parties are citizens of the same state. Second, Plaintiff's complaint does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. As such, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that alleges: (1) the specific laws or rights he thinks the defendant(s) violated; (2) for each law or right, state the specific factual allegations that connect each defendant with the alleged wrongdoing; and (3) how he was harmed.
Plaintiff failed to respond.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
A court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service of process if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or contains a complete defense to the action on its face. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e)(2) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) regarding dismissals for failure to state a claim. See id.; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). As such, the complaint must allege facts that plausibly establish each defendant's liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads 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).
A complaint must also comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires the complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The failure to comply with Rule 8 is a basis for dismissal that is not dependent on whether the complaint is without merit. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, even claims which are not on their face subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may still be dismissed for violating Rule 8(a). Id.
As Plaintiff is proceeding without representation by a lawyer, the Court must construe the complaint liberally. See Garaux v. Pulley, 739 F.2d 437, 439 (9th Cir. 1984). However, it may not add to the factual allegations in the complaint. See Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992). Litigants unrepresented by a lawyer remain bound by the Federal Rules and Local Rules of this District. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-9(a).
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). As such, they “have an independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction.” Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that district courts are “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [they] have subject matter jurisdiction”). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil cases and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kikkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.
There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A district court has federal question jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. at § 1331. A cause of action “arises under federal law only when the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.” Hansen v. Blue Cross of Cal., 891 F.2d 1384, 1386 (9th Cir. 1989). A district court has diversity jurisdiction “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between citizens of different states, or citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” Id.
As noted in its screening order, the Court is unable to discern any cognizable claim in Plaintiff's complaint. As to federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff has not identified any specific statute or constitutional right that has been violated. As to diversity jurisdiction, the allegations in the complaint indicate that all parties are citizens of the same state (California) and are non-diverse. Although the Court informed Plaintiff of these deficiencies, he failed to respond and has not otherwise shown how this Court has jurisdiction over his claims. Accordingly, dismissal is appropriate for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
1. Rule 8
Plaintiff's complaint also fails to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. “Something labeled a complaint but written . . . without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a complaint.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996). To comply with Rule 8, a complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations, but it is “a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief.” Bell v. Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations and quotations omitted). As such, the plaintiff must provide sufficient factual allegations “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570; see also Coleman v. Beard, 2015 WL 395662, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) (“While the federal rules require brevity in pleading, a complaint nevertheless must be sufficient to give the defendants ‘fair notice' of the claim and the ‘grounds upon which it rests.'”) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)).
In its screening order, the Court explained the requirements of Rule 8 and why Plaintiff's complaint failed to satisfy them, yet Plaintiff failed to respond. As noted above, the failure to comply with Rule 8 is a basis for dismissal that is not dependent on whether the complaint is without merit. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179. As such, even if the Court were to find Plaintiff's claims are not on their face subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), they may still be dismissed for violating Rule 8(a). Id. Accordingly, dismissal is appropriate for Plaintiff's failure to comply with Rule 8. See, e.g., Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding Rule 8(a) is violated by a pleading that was “confused, or consisted of incomprehensible rambling.”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that Rule 8(a) is violated when a complaint is excessively “verbose, confusing and almost entirely conclusory”); Schmidt v. Herrmann, 614 F.2d 1221, 1224 (9th Cir. 1980) (upholding a Rule 8(a) dismissal of “confusing, distracting, ambiguous, and unintelligible pleadings”).
V. CONCLUSION
As not all parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the undersigned requests this case be reassigned to a district judge for disposition with the recommendation that the Court DISMISS this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, any party may serve and file objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days after being served. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.