Ferrantino v. Stanford University

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

ANTHONY FERRANTINO, Case No. 21-cv-07757-LB

Plaintiff,

ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT v.

Re: ECF No. 1

STANFORD UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

The plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging violations of Title III of the Americans With Disability Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181–12189, against Stanford University on the grounds that he was wrongfully arrested by Stanford while he was a patient under its medical care.1 He also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which the court granted.2 A complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent that it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000)

1 Compl. – ECF No. 1. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. (en banc). Section 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an in forma pauperis complaint make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the United States Marshals to serve the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(2). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127. “The language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). The statute “is designed largely to discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing suit.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).

Under Rule 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint include a “short and plain statement” showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (cleaned up); see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but the plaintiff must “provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief,” which “requires more than labels and conclusions”; a mere “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” is insufficient. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up).

In determining whether to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the court is ordinarily limited to the face of the complaint. Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002). Factual allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and reasonable inferences drawn from them must be construed in favor of the plaintiff. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337–38 (9th Cir. 1996). The court cannot assume, however, that “the [plaintiff] can prove facts that [he or she] has not alleged.” Assoc. Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). “Nor is the court required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).

Federal courts must construe pro se complaints liberally. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 provide defendants with fair notice of his claims and the grounds upon which they rest. Hearns, || 413 F.3d at 1043. He need not plead specific legal theories so long as sufficient factual averments show that he may be entitled to some relief. Jd. at 1041.

4 When dismissing a case for failure to state a claim, the Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly held that a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, || unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” 7 Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130 (cleaned up).

8 The plaintiff alleges that he was denied access to his doctor’s office and the hospital, in violation of the ADA. He explains that he has been a respected Stanford patient for forty years, is a member of the Stanford alumni association, and was arrested by Stanford and told not to come back. This arrest, he alleges, was an error.’ To be able to evaluate the claim, the court needs more || facts. The court asks the plaintiff supplement his facts to describe exactly what happened to him 13 on the day in question, why he thinks it was wrong, and why it was discrimination in violation of || the ADA. (This last point requires the plaintiff to describe his disability.) The plaintiff may 15 supplement his complaint by October 29, 2021 and may do so in the form of a letter. If he does not || do so, the complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated: October 12, 2021 LAE

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

> Compl. ECF No. 1 at 4-5.