1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 ANTHONY FERRANTINO, Case No. 21-cv-07757-LB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT 13 v. Re: ECF No. 1 14 STANFORD UNIVERSITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 The plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging violations of Title III of the Americans With 18 Disability Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181–12189, against Stanford University on the grounds 19 that he was wrongfully arrested by Stanford while he was a patient under its medical care.1 He also 20 filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which the court granted.2 21 A complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis under

(a) is 22 subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent that it is 23 frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary 24 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. 25 Stahl,

(9th Cir. 2001); Lopez v. Smith,

, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) 26 27 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. 1 (en banc). Section 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an in forma pauperis complaint 2 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the United States Marshals to serve 3 the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(2). Lopez,

. “The 4 language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 12(b)(6).” Barren v. Harrington,

(9th Cir. 1998). The statute “is designed 6 largely to discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless 7 lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing suit.” 8 Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). 9 Under Rule 12(b)(6) and

(e)(2)(B), a district court must dismiss a complaint 10 if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint 11 include a “short and plain statement” showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief. “To survive a 12 motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a 13 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) (cleaned 14 up); see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). The complaint need not contain 15 “detailed factual allegations,” but the plaintiff must “provide the grounds of his entitlement to 16 relief,” which “requires more than labels and conclusions”; a mere “formulaic recitation of the 17 elements of a cause of action” is insufficient. Twombly,

(cleaned up). 18 In determining whether to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the court is ordinarily 19 limited to the face of the complaint. Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc.,

, 980 20 (9th Cir. 2002). Factual allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and reasonable 21 inferences drawn from them must be construed in favor of the plaintiff. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. 22 Co.,

, 337–38 (9th Cir. 1996). The court cannot assume, however, that “the [plaintiff] 23 can prove facts that [he or she] has not alleged.” Assoc. Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State 24 Council of Carpenters,

(1983). “Nor is the court required to accept as true 25 allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable 26 inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,

(9th Cir. 2001). 27 Federal courts must construe pro se complaints liberally. Hughes v. Rowe,

, 9 1 provide defendants with fair notice of his claims and the grounds upon which they rest. Hearns, 2 || 413 F.3d at 1043. He need not plead specific legal theories so long as sufficient factual averments 3 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 5 a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, 6 || unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” 7 Lopez,

(cleaned up). 8 The plaintiff alleges that he was denied access to his doctor’s office and the hospital, in 9 violation of the ADA. He explains that he has been a respected Stanford patient for forty years, is 10 a member of the Stanford alumni association, and was arrested by Stanford and told not to come 11 back. This arrest, he alleges, was an error.’ To be able to evaluate the claim, the court needs more 12 || facts. The court asks the plaintiff supplement his facts to describe exactly what happened to him 5 13 on the day in question, why he thinks it was wrong, and why it was discrimination in violation of 14 || the ADA. (This last point requires the plaintiff to describe his disability.) The plaintiff may 3 15 supplement his complaint by October 29, 2021 and may do so in the form of a letter. If he does not 16 || do so, the complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim. IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: October 12, 2021 LAE 19 LAUREL BEELER 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || > Compl. ECF No. 1 at 4-5.