# (PS) Harris v. Medical Board of California

> District Court, E.D. California · January 7, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10775509

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** January 7, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10775509

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 LaTRIVIA E. HARRIS, No. 2:24-cv-3253 DAD AC PS
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER and
14 MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
15 Defendant.
16
17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the
18 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma
19 pauperis (“IFP”), and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C.
20 § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) will therefore be granted.
21 I. Screening
22 A. Standards
23 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally
24 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A
26 claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v.
27 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court will
28 (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly
1 baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and
2 (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton
3 Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S.
4 1037 (2011).
5 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint
6 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court
7 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must
8 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a
9 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
10 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable
11 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618,
12 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice
13 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
14 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
15 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to
16 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has
17 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
18 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
19 678.  A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity
20 to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v.
21 Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in
22 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc).
23 B. The Complaint
24 Plaintiff brings suit against the Medical Board of California. ECF No. 1 at 2. As a basis
25 for jurisdiction, plaintiff marks “Federal Question” and lists discrimination, Fourteenth
26 Amendment Due Process, unfair and deceptive business practices, the Eighth Amendment right to
27 be informed, the Sixth Amendment protection from retaliation, and conspiracy in violation of the
28 criminal code. Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges that between 2021 and 2022 she filed a complaint against
1 Tenderloin Mental Health and three mental health workers. Id. at 6. Plaintiff was informed that
2 once the complaint was filed, she would not be informed about the outcome of the investigation.
3 Id. However, in 2022 she received a call from a person named Genevive stating that the Medical
4 Board did not receive a release of information from plaintiff. Id. Genevive explained that
5 because the complaint had been on file for 3 years without signed release documents, it was being
6 dismissed. Id. at 7. Plaintiff relayed her intention to go to the medical board in person. Id.
7 Plaintiff moved to Sacramento in 2024 and contacted Genevive to tell her that she had
8 relocated and that she wanted an appointment to talk. Id. Genevive contacted plaintiff and told
9 her that she did not need an appointment, but that plaintiff would have to start the complaint
10 process over because the prior complaint had been closed. Id. at 7-8. Plaintiff went to the
11 medical board in person repeatedly, but she could not find Genevive; it appeared Genevive was
12 retired. Id. at 8.
13 Plaintiff alleges that she is now being repeatedly assaulted and that someone destroyed her
14 tent with a steel pole. She alleges she is “repeatedly being assaulted by the street people they
15 use.” Id. at 9.
16 C. Analysis
17 This complaint must be dismissed, for several reasons. First, the complaint is barred by
18 the Eleventh Amendment, which bars suit against a state agency, such as the Medical Board of
19 California. Rhee v. Med. Bd. of California, No. 2:18-CV-0105 KJM DMC, 2019 WL 4025002,
20 at *1, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145903 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2019); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,
21 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Because the Medical Board of California is a state agency, the Eleventh
22 Amendment bars plaintiff from suing it in federal court.
23 Second, the complaint fails to establish a basis for federal jurisdiction. Although plaintiff
24 indicates that jurisdiction is based on the presence of a federal question and identifies numerous
25 federal statutes and constitutional provisions, she does not connect any of the alleged facts to
26 violations of federal law, and there are no obvious connections. Plaintiff states a clear set of
27 facts: she filed a complaint with the Medical Board, the Board told her that her complaint could
28 not be investigated because she had not signed the necessary release forms, and the Medical
1 Board therefore did not investigate the complaint. These facts do not and cannot establish a
2 violation of any federal law of which the court is aware. The complaint fails to satisfy 28 U.S.C.
3 § 1331 because it does not contain a claim arising under a federal law or the United States
4 Constitution and is not authorized by a federal statute that both regulates a specific subject matter
5 and confers federal jurisdiction. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962).
6 Third, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff does
7 not specify any cause of action in relation to the facts alleged, and no potentially cognizable cause
8 of action is apparent from the face of the complaint. For all of these reasons, the complaint must
9 be dismissed.
10 II. Leave to Amend is Not Appropriate
11 Leave to amend is not appropriate in this case. Ordinarily, pro se litigants are granted
12 liberal leave to amend. “Valid reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith,
13 prejudice, and futility.” California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d
14 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, given the defects described above, the undersigned finds that
15 leave to amend would be futile and should therefore not be granted.
16 III. Pro Se Plaintiff’s Summary
17 The Magistrate Judge is recommending that your case be dismissed because the facts you
18 allege do not support any legal claim. You may object to this recommendation within 21 days if
19 you wish to do so.
20 IV. Conclusion
21 The court ORDERS that the motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.
22 Further, the undersigned recommends that that the complaint (ECF No. 1) be
23 DISMISSED and that this case be closed.
24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty one days
26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
27 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a document
28 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure
1 | to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s
2 || order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153,
3 || 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
4 | DATED: January 7, 2025 ~
5 Httven— Lhar—e_
ALLISON CLAIRE
6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10775509. Public record. Not legal advice.