Austin v. Atlina

Background

George Jarvis Austin filed a second amended complaint against Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.; the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Dr. Lisa Nhu; Sean Ducar; Maribeth Arendt; Everest National Insurance Company; the County of San Joaquin; and Guido Gaiteri. He alleged intentional discrimination, invasion of privacy, and whistleblower retaliation. The opinion states that Austin represented himself.

Seven motions to dismiss were pending. Austin also filed motions for judgment, some styled as motions for summary judgment. Because of the procedural posture, the court treated those motions as motions for judgment on the pleadings. Austin also moved to remove objections connected to the dismissal motions; the court granted that request and did not consider the objections.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court first ruled that the defendants had not been properly served under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Austin had the burden of showing valid service, but he did not show that the summonses and complaint were properly served. The court rejected his position that providing notice through the court’s electronic filing system was enough. It therefore found service improper and personal jurisdiction lacking.

The court also held that the second amended complaint failed to satisfy Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. Although the complaint had been shortened from more than 180 pages to 40 pages, it still lacked numbered paragraphs, was difficult to understand, relied heavily on quotations and legal citations without case-specific facts, and often grouped all defendants together without identifying each defendant’s conduct. The court found that Austin had not plausibly alleged facts supporting his claims. Because he had previously been advised of these problems and had not corrected them, the court found dismissal without leave to amend appropriate.

The court identified additional deficiencies. It stated that California workers’ compensation law provides the exclusive remedy for claims within the workers’ compensation bargain and concluded that part of Austin’s complaint was barred. It also repeated its earlier conclusion that the federal medical-privacy law cited by Austin does not create a private right of action, so his invasion-of-privacy claim based on alleged disclosure of medical records failed as pleaded.

As to the Department of Health and Human Services, the court stated that sovereign immunity barred the claims based on alleged failure to enforce the medical-privacy law and barred claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. The court also stated that a constitutional damages claim of the type discussed in the opinion could not proceed against a federal agency.

The court concluded that claims against Maribeth Arendt, whom it described as an administrative law judge for California’s Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, were barred by judicial immunity because the allegations concerned conduct in her official adjudicative role and the complaint sought damages. The court further held that California Health and Safety Code § 1278.5 did not create a claim against individual doctors, so Austin’s retaliation claim against Dr. Nhu failed. The court also found that Austin had not plausibly alleged retaliation or discrimination by the County based on his complaints about canceled appointments and his removal from the hospital.

Finally, the court construed Austin’s intentional-discrimination allegations as potentially arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. It held that he had not plausibly alleged that he was entitled to workers’ compensation, that similarly situated people received the benefits he was denied, or that race caused the denial.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss without leave to amend. It denied Austin’s motions for judgment on the pleadings as moot. The order is titled an order of dismissal with prejudice, directed the clerk to close the case, and directed entry of judgment in favor of the defendants against Austin. The court stated that the order terminated the listed docket numbers.