Myers v. UCSF Medical Center

Background

Robert Myers, who represented himself, applied for permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. His complaint named numerous defendants, including UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General Hospital, the San Francisco Police Department, San Francisco homelessness and public-health agencies, Mayor London Breed, Episcopal Community Services, the University of the Pacific School of Dentistry, and various individuals and other entities.

Myers described alleged injuries and disputes involving several different events. He alleged that medical treatment at UCSF caused breathing and other physical problems, that he received inadequate care at other hospitals and at the University of the Pacific dental school, and that police officers seized or towed his car and retained inaccurate information about him. He also made allegations concerning homelessness services, Project RoomKey, housing, a loan and life-insurance dispute, and other matters. He requested damages and court orders addressing several of these allegations.

Permission to Proceed Without Paying Fees

The court granted Myers’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee because sufficient cause had been shown.

Screening and Jurisdiction

Because Myers was allowed to proceed without paying fees, the court was required to screen his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That law requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court also applied the requirement that a complaint provide a short and plain statement explaining why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Because Myers represented himself, the court said it would read his allegations liberally, and it noted that a self-represented plaintiff ordinarily should be allowed to amend unless the defects cannot be corrected.

The court said the complaint did not establish diversity jurisdiction because multiple defendants shared California citizenship with Myers. It also said the complaint did not establish federal-question jurisdiction. Although Myers referred generally to federal laws, civil rights, and health-care and housing regulations, he did not identify the federal laws involved or explain how those laws formed the basis of his claims. The court stated that it would be better able to assess jurisdiction after Myers clarified which claims he intended to bring.

Pleading and Joinder Problems

The court concluded that the complaint did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because it combined many unrelated experiences and made it difficult to determine which allegations applied to which defendants. The complaint also lacked numbered paragraphs as required by Rule 10(b). In addition, the court found that the allegations did not provide a sufficient basis for joining all the defendants in one action under Rule 20, which permits multiple defendants to be sued together when the claims arise from the same transaction or related series of events and involve common questions of law or fact.

The court gave as examples the apparent lack of connection between allegations involving the mayor, the university dental school, and the hospitals, as well as between the Project RoomKey allegations and a police ticket from 2002. The court said it was doubtful that one complaint covering the full range of events described by Myers could satisfy the pleading and joinder rules. It encouraged him to focus any amended complaint on a particular group of defendants and related conduct that caused a specific injury actionable under federal law or another basis for federal jurisdiction.

Order

The court ordered Myers to show cause why the action should not be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. By February 23, 2023, he had to file either an amended complaint correcting the identified defects or a response arguing that the existing complaint was sufficient. The court instructed that any amended complaint must use the case caption and number, identify itself as a first amended complaint, include all facts, claims, and defendants Myers wished to pursue, and not incorporate the original complaint by reference. The court did not dismiss the action in this order. The order was signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.