Larry Smith v. Fred Sedighi, Nirali Patel, Richard M. Obler, Genielyn Hill, Paul J. Manos, Felisa V. Velesrubio, Dorothy E. Hairston, Daniel V. White, Razi D. Hekmat, Frank K. Yoo, Kaye L. Elamparo, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, Amir Mohamed

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California grants Larry Smith’s renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis and assesses an initial partial filing fee. The court denies reconsideration of appointment of counsel, denies a motion of inquiry as moot, and dismisses the § 1983 complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), while granting leave to amend.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff satisfied the requirements for IFP status, and the court granted the motion while assessing an initial partial filing fee of $2.62 and directing collection of the remaining statutory fee through monthly payments.
2. The complaint failed to state a § 1983 claim against the Paradise Valley Hospital doctors and Doe defendants because it did not plausibly allege that they acted under color of state law.
3. The complaint failed to state claims against the alleged Paradise Valley Hospital supervisory doctor and director because it alleged no personal wrongful conduct or sufficient causal connection to a constitutional violation.
4. The complaint failed to plausibly allege that Sedighi or Mohamed acted with deliberate indifference to Smith's serious medical needs.
5. The complaint failed to state an equal protection claim because it alleged no facts showing intentional discrimination based on membership in a protected class or disparate treatment of similarly situated inmates.
6. The complaint failed to state an ADA claim because it did not allege exclusion from or denial of a public entity's services by reason of disability, and individual defendants cannot be sued in their individual capacities under the ADA.
7. The court denied the motion for reconsideration, construed as a renewed motion for appointment of counsel, without prejudice because Plaintiff did not show exceptional circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff satisfied the statutory requirements to proceed in forma pauperis.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged state action by private hospital physicians and staff for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged supervisory liability against the Doe supervisory defendants.
4. Whether the allegations against Defendants Sedighi and Mohamed stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim.
5. Whether the complaint stated an Equal Protection Clause claim.
6. Whether the complaint stated an ADA claim against the defendants.
7. Whether appointment of counsel was warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
8. Whether the motion of inquiry was moot.

Disposition

dismissed