Johnson v. Mobile Life Ambulance, Inc

Background

Jamel Johnson, who was incarcerated and represented himself, sued Mobile Life Ambulance, Inc., Gayle Metzger, and Stephanie Guzman (EMT). He alleged that, on August 24, 2021, police Officer Peterson searched him while Guzman was transporting him to a hospital after an apparent drug overdose. Johnson claimed that the search violated the Fourth Amendment and that Guzman had a duty to stop it. Officer Peterson was not named as a defendant. Johnson sought damages under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and under state law.

Screening and Section 1983 claims

The court screened the complaint under the statutes governing complaints filed by incarcerated people who are allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally valid claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

For a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted under authority or custom of a state or local government. The court held that Guzman and Metzger were private parties and were not alleged to work for a government body. It also held that Mobile Life was not acting as a government actor. Providing emergency medical care and transportation was not a public function, joint action with the State, or action using the State’s coercive power. The court therefore dismissed Johnson’s Section 1983 claims against Guzman, Metzger, and Mobile Life. The court also noted that, even if a defendant had been a state actor, Johnson had not identified a legal basis requiring the defendants to stop or interfere with Officer Peterson’s search.

Section 1981 claims

Section 1981 protects equal rights to make and enforce contracts and certain related activities. The court held that Johnson’s allegations concerned Guzman’s alleged failure to stop the police search, not the making or enforcement of a contract or another activity covered by Section 1981. The court therefore dismissed the Section 1981 claims.

State-law claims and amendment

After dismissing the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Johnson might be asserting. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case.

Because Johnson was representing himself, the court considered whether to allow him to amend the complaint. It declined to grant leave to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Johnson permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees. Judgment was ordered to be entered.