Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled June 2, 2023

Awad v. Dr. Birbenk

Judge
William Orrick
Docket
3:22-cv-00665
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil RightsSection 1983Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Awad v. Dr. Birbenk, Judge Orrick dismissed Awad’s federal civil-rights suit without prejudice because Birbenk was a private actor.

Who this affects

The dismissal ended Abdulhadi Naim Awad’s federal civil-rights case against Dr. Birbenk, while leaving the opinion’s stated possibility of pursuing claims in state court.

What happened

In Abdulhadi Naim Awad v. Dr. Birbenk, Awad sued Dr. Birbenk under a federal civil-rights law for conduct related to an operation on Awad’s hand.

The court said the operation occurred while Birbenk worked at Queen of the Valley Hospital, which the opinion identifies as a private Catholic hospital. Because Birbenk was a private person rather than a state actor, the court found that he could not be sued under that law.

Judge William Orrick dismissed the federal case without prejudice to Awad pursuing his claims in state court. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for Birbenk and close the file.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Awad v. Dr. Birbenk · No. 3:22-cv-00665
Judge
William Orrick
Date
June 2, 2023

Background

Abdulhadi Naim Awad brought a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute that generally allows suits against people acting for the state, against Dr. Birbenk. Birbenk was the sole remaining defendant. The opinion says that Birbenk operated on Awad’s hand while employed at Queen of the Valley Hospital, which the opinion identifies as a private Catholic hospital.

Court’s reasoning

The court held that Birbenk was a private actor, not a state actor. Acting under color of state law—that is, using authority or power connected to the state—is an essential element of a claim under Section 1983. Because Awad’s allegations did not establish that Birbenk acted under color of state law, Birbenk could not be held liable under Section 1983.

Disposition

The court dismissed the federal civil-rights action without prejudice to Awad pursuing his claims in state court. The clerk was ordered to enter judgment in favor of Birbenk and close the file. Judge William Orrick signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.