1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL DEUSCHEL, Case No. 23-cv-03458-LJC

8 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER PURSUANT TO 9 v.

(E)(2)

10 CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND HUMAN Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 3, 13 SERVICES AGENCY, et al. 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff Michael Deuschel filed a Complaint and an application for leave to proceed in 14 forma pauperis (IFP). ECF Nos. 1 (Compl.), 3. Having considered Plaintiff’s papers, the Court 15 GRANTS the IFP application, finds that the Complaint fails to meet the requirements of 28

, and GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend. 17 In this action Mr. Deuschel has sued numerous defendants for violations of federal and 18 state law, specifically the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Act, Section 11135 of the 19 California Government Code, Equal Protection provisions of the California Constitution, and 20 Section 1278.5 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations, as well as claims for assault, 21 battery, and negligence. All together there are eleven causes of action. Mr. Deuschel seeks 22 injunctive, declaratory and equitable relief, attorney fees and costs, and damages. 23 Mr. Deuschel filed his Complaint on July 11, 2023. The Complaint spans eighty-six pages 24 and names twenty-six defendants: the California Health and Human Services Agency; Dr. Mark 25 Ghaly, as Secretary of the agency; the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS); 26 William Lightbourne, as Director of DHCS; California Department of Social Services (DSS); 27 Kimberly Johnson, Director of DSS; California Governor Gavin Newsom; the Regents of the 1 Vivas, M.D.; Elizabeth Lorde, M.D.; Sharon Hame, M.D., Isaac Yang, M.D., Lee Tan, M.D.; 2 Cedars-Sinai Medical Center; Thomas M. Priselac; Carol Dobashi; Stanford Health Care; Corrina 3 Zygourakis, M.D.; Sophia Loo; Christine Bulnes; University of Southern California Keck 4 Hospital; Thomas Chen, M.D.; Sutter Health; George Picetti, M.D.; Rudolph Schrot, M.D.; and 5 Dignity Health Saint Bernardine Medical Center. Mr. Deuschel further alleges Does One through 6 One Hundred, and claims battery and assault by private security officers at various health care 7 facilities, and by police officers and sheriff deputies from different jurisdictions. 8 To state a claim for relief, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the 9 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Additionally, a 10 complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted by alleging facts that plausibly establish 11 a defendant’s liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

, 555–57 (2007); see, also, 12 Turner v. Empire-Today, Today's Sales LLC, No. 22-CV-06994-KAW,

, at *1 13 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 22-CV-06994-JSC,

3035432 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2023) (noting that because the language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 15 parallels the language of Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court applies the 16 same standard to a § 1915 screening as it does to a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss). 17 Mr. Deuschel’s allegations describe in summary and conclusory form conduct by 18 governmental entities, public and private medical centers, medical practitioners, and others. For 19 many, if not all defendants, there are no specific allegations regarding their conduct at issue. 20 There are numerous allegations, dating back to 2009, that individuals and entities have been 21 “involved” in depriving Mr. Deuschel of a multitude of treatments for a multitude of conditions. 22 Compl. ¶¶ 48–50. He further alleges that the Medi-Cal Program is mismanaged due to its Fee-for- 23 Service reimbursement rates and managed care capitation rates. Id. ¶¶ 107–108. Ultimately, Mr. 24 Deuschel’s complaint is confusing and conclusory with respect to its allegations of discrimination 25 and other violations. There are few alleged facts, as opposed to conclusory statements, regarding 26 what each Defendant did to give rise to a plausible legal claim. 27 Mr. Deuschel’s voluminous pleading provides extensive lists of generally described 1 “methods of administration”. See e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 82-103, 120-125, 129-128. Further into the 2 Complaint, Mr. Deuschel alleges that medical and administrative services were denied over the 3 course of thirteen years. See Compl. ¶¶ 130-178. He alleges dozens of outstanding surgeries and 4 medical treatments associated with various disorders. He also alleges previous delays and denials 5 of service, and administrative abuse. These allegations lump together multiple defendants and 6 other individuals. For each surgery or treatment, Mr. Deuschel alleges a general time frame, 7 sometimes spanning up to seven years, and names multiple medical facilities and individuals, 8 alongside a month and year, but does not describe what happened. Because there are no facts 9 alleged with respect to how the denials of service occurred, it is not possible to discern the 10 connection between the systemic deprivations and tactics that Mr. Deuschel has alleged, and the 11 denials of service and the injury to Mr. Deuschel. Similarly, there are no factual allegations 12 describing the incidents of police assault and battery. Compl. ¶¶ 178, 588, 593. 13 A complaint violates Rule 8 “when a pleading says too much.” Knapp v. Hogan,

(9th Cir. 2013). Rule 8(a) is violated by a pleading that is “needlessly long” or is 15 “confused.” Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 16 2011). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has stated it has “never held—and [it] know[s] of no authority 17 supporting the proposition—that a pleading may be of unlimited length and opacity.”

. 18 This is, in part, due to “[p]rolix, confusing complaints . . . impos[ing] unfair burdens on litigants 19 and judges.” McHenry v. Renne,

(9th Cir. 1996). Here, as explained above, 20 the Complaint lumps together multiple defendants, lists generalized conduct, and fails to describe 21 the specific facts and actions by each Defendant that underpins each cause of action. It would be 22 unduly burdensome to require the twenty-six named Defendants to respond to the Complaint in its 23 present form, given the lack of notice as to the conduct at issue and their role in the alleged 24 violations. Allegations must “provide sufficient notice to all of the Defendants as to the nature of 25 the claims being asserted against them,” including “what conduct is at issue.” Villalpando v. Exel 26 Direct Inc., No. 12-CV-04137 JCS,

, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2014). 27 In conclusion, having evaluated Mr. Deuschel’s financial affidavit, the Court finds that he 1 application, but the Court also holds his Complaint is deficient under Rule 8(a) of the Federal 2 || Rules of Civil Procedure. Screening the Complaint under

(e), the Court finds 3 || that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court GRANTS leave to amend 4 and directs Mr. Deuschel to file his amended complaint by November 27, 2023. 5 Service by the U.S. Marshals pursuant to

(d) is stayed until further order 6 || of the Court. To date, Defendants California Health and Human Services Agency and Dr. Mark 7 Ghaly are the only named Defendants on Mr. Deuschel’s Summons and it appears that only they 8 have been served. See ECF Nos. 10-11. The deadline for Defendants California Health and 9 |} Human Services Agency and Dr. Mark Ghaly’s responsive pleading is also stayed. The Court will 10 set a deadline for a responsive pleading, if and when Mr. Deuschel perfects his Complaint. 11 Going forward, Counsel shall also comply with Civil Local Rules 5-1(c)(2) and (f), which 12 || require the filing of attorney notices of appearance and the filing of proposed orders as 5 13 attachments to motions and other documents, in addition to the submission of proposed orders in 14 || word processing format. Counsel shall familiarize themselves with the Civil Local Rules and 3 15 Judge Cisneros’s Standing Order. a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 17 Dated: October 24, 2023 19 7 a Arty —$ i Z (i 20 Untitéd States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28