Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 WILLIAM FREDERICK Case No. 2:25-cv-00379-TLN-CSK

GOLDSBERRY, JR.,

12 ORDER & FINDINGS AND

Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS

13

v. (ECF Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28)

14

NORTH BAY REGIONAL HOSPITAL,

15

Defendant.

16

17 Plaintiff William Frederick Goldsberry, Jr. is representing himself in this action and

18 has filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).1 SAC (ECF No. 25). The Court

19 previously granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), dismissed

20 the complaint, and granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint. See

21 3/27/2025 Order (ECF No. 10); 11/17/2025 Order (ECF No. 24). For the reasons that

22 follow, the Court recommends that the SAC be dismissed without leave to amend for

23 failure to state a claim.

24 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

25 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis

26 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to

27

1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R.

28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c).

1 state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a

2 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith,

3 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (en banc). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an

4 arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In

5 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual

6 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and

7 construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See id. at 326-27;

8 Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir.

9 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).

10 Pleadings by self-represented litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627

11 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post-Iqbal).

12 However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable

13 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d

14 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does

15 not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007);

16 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

17 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough

18 facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A

19 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court

20 to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

21 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the

22 complaint and an opportunity to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be

23 cured by amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80

24 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996).

25 II. DISCUSSION

26 A. Failure to Comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

27 Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant North Bay Regional Hospital, a

28 private entity, for disability discrimination during Plaintiff’s hospital visits in 2022. See

1 generally SAC. Plaintiff alleges he was discriminated against by hospital staff due to his

2 narcotic addiction. Id. at 2. Plaintiff asserts violations “under the United States

3 Constitution Prohibition of Discrimination by Discriminations A.D.A., under both Federal

4 law and California State law in violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act, Medical Malpractice

5 and Prof[]essional Negligence and California Civil Penal Codes 51-52.” Id. at 3-5, 7-8,

6 10, 17. For relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages only. Id. at 24.

7 Plaintiff’s SAC does not contain a short and plain statement of a claim as required

8 by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. In order to give fair notice of the claims and the

9 grounds on which they rest, a plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of

10 particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims. See Kimes v.

11 Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). A review of Plaintiff’s SAC reveals it consists

12 of “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements” of her causes of action and fails to state a claim

13 for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

14 Plaintiff appears to bring a single claim for discrimination under Title III of the

15 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) against Defendant, who is alleged to be a private

16 entity. See SAC at 1-2. To establish a Title III discrimination claim, a plaintiff must show:

17 “(1) [h]e is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) the defendant is a private entity

18 that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; and (3) the plaintiff was

19 denied public accommodations by the defendant because of [his] disability.” Molski v.

20 M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 730 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182(a)-(b)).

21 However, monetary damages are not recoverable in private suits under Title III of the

22 ADA, only injunctive relief. Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing

23 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1); see also Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 905 (9th

24 Cir. 2011) (“[A] private plaintiff can sue only for injunctive relief (i.e. for removal of the

25 barrier) under [Title III] of the ADA.”). Plaintiff does not seek injunctive relief in this action.

26 See generally SAC. Because Plaintiff seeks only monetary damages under Title III, there

27 is no legal remedy available for Plaintiff under his Title III claim. Accordingly, the Court

28 recommends dismissing this action without leave to amend for failure to state a claim.

1 B. State Law Claims

2 Plaintiff also seeks to bring related state law claims pursuant to the California

3 Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 51, et seq.), medical malpractice and

4 negligence. SAC at 3-5, 7-8, 10, 17. As discussed above, Plaintiff has failed to state a

5 claim under federal law. Accordingly, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction

6 over Plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Campos v. Fresno Deputy

7 Sheriff’s Association, 535 F.Supp.3d 913, 931 (E.D. Cal. 2021); Religious Tech. Ctr. V.

8 Wollersheim, 971 F.2d 364, 367-68 (9th Cir. 1992).

9 C. Leave to Amend

10 Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, even a pro se

11 litigant’s complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of a claim plainly and

12 succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). If the

13 court finds that a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, it has

14 discretion to dismiss with or without leave to amend. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-30. Leave

15 to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint could

16 be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Id. at 1130-31; see also Cato v. United

17 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A pro se litigant must be given leave to

18 amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless it is absolutely

19 clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”) (citation

20 omitted). However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear that a complaint cannot be

21 cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to amend. Cato, 70 F.3d at

22 1105-06. Here, Plaintiff’s only federal claim does not provide a legal remedy for

23 monetary relief as requested by Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court finds that further

24 amendment would be futile. In addition, Plaintiff was already provided an opportunity to

25 amend, and an extension to amend. See 3/27/2025 Order; 4/24/2025 Order (ECF No.

26 13); 11/17/2025 Order. The SAC should therefore be dismissed without leave to amend.

27 See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105-06.

28 / / /

1] Ul. Plaintiff's Miscellaneous Motions

2 Plaintiff has also filed motions for leave to amend his SAC to add additional

3 | information and a defendant (ECF Nos. 26, 28) and a motion to compel (ECF No. 27).

4 | Because the Court finds amendment would be futile in light of the SAC’s deficiencies as

5 || identified above, the Court denies Plaintiff's motions.

6 | IV. CONCLUSION

7 In accordance with the above, IT |S ORDERED that:

8 1. Plaintiff's motions to amend (ECF Nos. 26, 28) are DENIED; and

9 2. Plaintiffs motion to compel (ECF No. 27) is DENIED.

10 Further, based upon the findings above, it is RECOMMENDED that:

11 1. Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 25) be DISMISSED

12 without leave to amend; and

13 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to CLOSE this case.

14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

15 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

16 | 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

17 | written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should

18 | be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any

19 | reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14

20 | days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time

21 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,

22 || 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

23

24 | Dated: March 3, 2026 C i s

25 CHI SOO KIM

26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27 || 4, gold0379.25

28