The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 HANNA Q. RHEE, No. 2:18-CV-0105-KJM-DMC
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 BIGGS-GRIDLEY MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. The matter was
20 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District of California local
21 rules.
22 On January 5, 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed supplemental findings and
23 recommendations and findings and recommendations, ECF No. 53, which were served on the
24 parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the time specified
25 therein. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.
26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304,
27 this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds
28 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. The
1 court writes separately here only to confirm that it has reviewed Ms. Rhee’s objections and agrees
2 with the Magistrate Judge that:
3 Lavid’s and Helzinger’s alleged conduct did not violate “clearly established law,”
4 so they are entitled to qualified immunity, see, e.g., District of Columbia v. Wesby,
5 138 S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018);
6 Further amendments to the claims against Lavid and Helzinger would be futile,
7 see, e.g., Gompper v. VISX, Inc., 298 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2002);
8 The complaint does not include factual allegations that could permit an inference
9 of the hospital defendants’ liability based on Ms. Rhee’s conspiracy, equal
10 protection, or privacy claims, see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009);
11 and
12 Ms. Rhee has had many opportunities to complete service of process, but has not
13 succeeded, so it is appropriate not to further extend the deadline for service of
14 process, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
16 1. The supplemental findings and recommendations and findings and
17 recommendations filed January 5, 2022, are adopted in full;
18 2. The State Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied insofar as they argue the
19 court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction pursuant to Younger;
20 3. The State Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied insofar as they argue
21 they are not “persons” for purposes of § 1983;
22 4. The State Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted insofar as they argue
23 plaintiff fails to state a claim against defendants Moya, Lavid, and Hilzinger and these defendants
24 are entitled to qualified immunity;
25 5. Defendants Moya, Lavid, and Hilzinger are dismissed with prejudice;
26 6. The Hospital defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted;
27 7. Defendants Biggs-Gridley Memorial Hospital dba Orchard Hospital, Stark,
28 James Brown, Jr., Storne-Piazza, Starkes, Buttacavolli, Harris, Margaret Isley Brown, Becker,
1 | Redfield, Cunha, Engen, Cota, and Kullar are dismissed with prejudice;
2 8. Plaintiff is directed to file a first amended complaint as to her claims for
3 | injunctive relief against defendants Alvarez and Bonta! within 30 days of the date of this order;
4 9. If plaintiff does not file a first amended complaint within the time provided
5 | therefor, the entire action will be dismissed without further leave to amend and without further
6 || findings and recommendations;
7 10. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 12 and 14 as
8 | pending motions; and
9 11. The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge to monitor for
10 | timely filing of Plaintiff's first amended complaint.
11 | DATED: March 18, 2022.
12
13
4 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Q_—_ x Soda
' Rob Bonta is substituted in place of Xavier Becerra in his official capacity as Attorney General
28 | of California under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).