(PS) Pierson v. Sutter Health

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RAYMOND H. PIERSON, III, No. 2:20-cv-00124-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER SUTTER HEALTH, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Raymond H. Pierson, III (“Plaintiff”), an individual proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20 On June 29, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 20.) On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff requested additional time to file his objections, which the magistrate judge granted.

24 (ECF Nos. 27, 28.) On July 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 31), as well as a “motion to invalidate claim of service” (ECF No. 24) — which corresponds to arguments made in the objections. Additionally, Plaintiff has filed multiple motions and requests after the filing of the Findings and Recommendations. These include a request for permission to file a judicial notice request (ECF No. 21), a request for judicial notice (ECF No. 22), a request to file a motion of extended length (ECF No. 23), and two notices of interested parties (ECF Nos. 25, 26). Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s objections and opposed the miscellaneous requests. (ECF Nos. 29, 30.) These filings have been considered by the Court.

5 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

12 Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

15 Plaintiff’s objections fail to address the deficiency in his Complaint noted by the magistrate judge. Namely, that Plaintiff has failed to allege an action under color of state law and therefore cannot bring a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action against the named Defendants. Based on the allegations in the Complaint, none of the Defendants are governmental actors and therefore no § 1983 claim can be brought against them. Further, Plaintiff cannot cure this defect by pleading additional facts. Therefore, the § 1983 claim — Plaintiff’s only federal claim — must be dismissed without leave to amend. Gardner v. Marino, 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend when amendment would be futile). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s causes of action arising under state law. These causes of action are therefore dismissed, but Plaintiff is not foreclosed from refiling these claims in state court.

26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed June 29, 2020 (ECF No. 20), are adopted in 28 full; 1 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED; 2 3. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims with prejudice; 3 4. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law 4 claims, thereby DISMISSING them without prejudice; 5 5. Leave to amend is DENIED; 6 6. Plaintiff’s miscellaneous motions (ECF Nos 21, 22, 23, and 24) are DENIED as moot; 7 and 8 7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 27, 2020