(PS) Edwards v. Northeastern Rural Health Clinics, No. 2:2010cv02803 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 11/9/2010 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Zignago, K.)
Download PDF
(PS) Edwards v. Northeastern Rural Health Clinics Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD EDWARDS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. CIV S-10-2803-JAM-CMK vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS NORTHEASTERN RURAL HEALTH CLINICS, 15 Defendant. 16 / 17 18 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. The court is required 19 to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer 20 or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court is also required to 21 screen complaints brought by litigants who have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 22 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under these screening provisions, the court must dismiss a 23 complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon 24 which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 25 such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B) and 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, pursuant to 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h), this court must dismiss an action “[w]henever it 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 appears . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter . . . .” Because plaintiff, who is 2 not a prisoner, has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court will screen the 3 complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). Pursuant to Rule 12(h), the court will also consider as a 4 threshold matter whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction. 5 In this case, plaintiff alleges that defendant, who is not a state actor, intentionally 6 caused him pain and suffering by preventing him from obtaining medical care. Plaintiff has not, 7 however, cited any federal statute or constitutional provision for purposes of establishing this 8 court’s federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff, who is a citizen of California, does not allege that 9 defendant is a citizen of another state for purposes of establishing this court’s diversity 10 jurisdiction. It appears that plaintiff’s complaint presents only questions of state law over which 11 this court lacks jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s remedies, if any, lie in state court and not in federal court. 12 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed 13 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 15 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 16 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 17 objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 18 objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 19 See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 21 22 23 DATED: November 9, 2010 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 2