Calderon v. St. Barnabas Hospital

Background

Ana Calderon, appearing without a lawyer, sued St. Barnabas Hospital and invoked federal-question jurisdiction. She described the federal or statutory bases of her claims as “civil rights, personal injury, false claims, [and] human rights.” The court understood the complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing damages for certain constitutional violations by persons acting under state authority, as well as state-law claims.

Calderon alleged that, during two periods in 2020 and 2021, emergency medical services took her from her home and forced her admission to St. Barnabas Hospital. She alleged that security officers forced her to undress, saw her naked, forced her to wear a hospital gown, and forced her to take medication. She also alleged that doctors forced her to take medication and sign a consent form, nurses denied her water and asthma medication, she was denied food and placed on a “green diet,” and security officers assaulted her after a nurse said she had lost a pencil. She alleged brain damage, memory damage, medication side effects, hallucinations, and loss of enjoyment of life.

Legal standard

Because Calderon had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint. It had to dismiss claims that were frivolous or malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented complaints liberally, the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make liability plausible rather than merely possible.

Section 1983 claims against the hospital

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against St. Barnabas Hospital for failure to state a claim. A § 1983 claim requires allegations showing both a violation of a federal right and action taken under state authority. Private entities generally are not state actors. The court found that Calderon alleged no facts showing that the private hospital acted as a state actor when it allegedly injured her.

The court granted leave to amend. It explained that, if Calderon continued to pursue § 1983 claims against the hospital, she would also need to allege that a hospital policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. The court did not decide whether the alleged treatment actually violated Calderon’s constitutional rights.

Possible claims against individual employees

The court understood the complaint as possibly attempting to assert claims against hospital employees, including security guards, but Calderon had not named any individuals or identified which employees were responsible. A § 1983 claim against an individual requires facts showing that the person personally and directly participated in the alleged constitutional violation. An employee cannot be held liable solely because that person supervised or employed someone else. The court therefore granted Calderon leave to name individual defendants and describe each person’s direct involvement. It noted that a private security guard might qualify as a state actor if the guard exercised certain government-granted police powers, but the complaint did not provide facts establishing that point.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Calderon 30 days to file an amended complaint. The amended pleading had to name the defendants in both the caption and the factual allegations, identify unknown defendants as “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” with descriptions, and state the relevant facts, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than add to it, so Calderon would have to repeat any facts or claims she wanted the court to consider.

The court dismissed the action and granted leave to amend. If Calderon did not timely amend and could not show good cause, the court stated that it would direct entry of judgment dismissing the action, dismiss the federal claims for failure to state a claim, and decline to consider the state-law claims under supplemental jurisdiction. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.