Ralon v. Kaiser Permanente Hospital

Background

Domitila Pelaez Ralon filed a form complaint against Kaiser Permanente Hospital and applied to proceed without paying filing fees. She represented herself. Her complaint asserted a claim under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Ralon alleged that she went to Kaiser Permanente Hospital in San Rafael, California, for a scheduled surgery. She stated that hospital personnel expelled her and her authorized representative, Mr. Selomi M. Villalta, from the waiting room, the building, and the property to the street, without cause, reason, or explanation.

Court’s analysis

The court granted Ralon’s application to proceed without paying filing fees after finding that she was indigent. Because a person proceeding without paying fees must have the complaint screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court reviewed whether the complaint was frivolous, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant.

The court explained that a Title VI claim requires allegations that the plaintiff experienced discrimination because of race, color, or national origin, and that the defendant operated a program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The court also stated that a private plaintiff must prove intentional discrimination.

The court concluded that Ralon did not allege that she was expelled because of intentional discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. She also did not allege that Kaiser Permanente Hospital received federal funding. The court therefore found that the complaint failed to state a Title VI claim.

Rulings and next steps

The court denied Ralon’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice, explaining that civil litigants generally do not have a right to appointed counsel and that, at this early stage, she had not shown that appointed counsel was warranted. The court stated that she could renew the request later.

The court did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, it ordered Ralon to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. She could respond by filing an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies or by explaining why the existing complaint was sufficient. The response was due August 9, 2023. The court stated that if she did not respond, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Judge Joseph C. Spero signed the order.