Carl A. Wescott v. HonorHealth, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona grants Carl A. Wescott’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and screens his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court dismisses the complaint for failure to state plausible federal claims, denies the pending service motion, and grants leave to file a First Amended Complaint within 30 days.

Holdings

1. The court granted the application to proceed in forma pauperis and screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
2. The § 1983 claims against HonorHealth and Dr. Castro-Marin were dismissed because the complaint did not plausibly allege that either defendant was a state actor or that the challenged conduct was fairly attributable to the State.
3. The general § 1983 claim was dismissed because the complaint did not clearly identify a constitutional right or federal law allegedly violated.
4. The due-process claim based on the alleged loss or deprivation of Wescott's property was dismissed because adequate post-deprivation remedies were available under Arizona law.
5. The § 1985(3) conspiracy claim was dismissed because, after dismissal of the claims against Dr. Castro-Marin, only one defendant remained and § 1985(3) requires a conspiracy of two or more persons.
6. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice after dismissing all federal claims.
7. The court granted Wescott thirty days to file a first amended complaint because it was not absolutely clear that the pleading deficiencies could not be cured by amendment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against HonorHealth and Dr. Castro-Marin when the complaint did not adequately allege that they were state actors.
2. Whether the complaint stated a § 1983 due-process claim based on the alleged loss or deprivation of property when Arizona provided adequate post-deprivation remedies.
3. Whether the complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) when dismissal of the claims against one alleged conspirator left only one remaining defendant.
4. Whether the complaint adequately identified a constitutional right or federal law supporting its general § 1983 claim against the remaining defendants.
5. Whether the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissal of all federal claims.

Disposition

dismissed