Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Campbell v. Obama

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

February 10, 2015

BARACK OBAMA, et al., Defendants.


PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge.

Responding to three motions to dismiss and filing his own motion for removal of state administrative proceedings, motion to join a defendant and motion to vacate an order and withdraw consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, Plaintiff Kenneth L. Campbell shares many frustrations with the political and legal professions.[1] Because these frustrations are no substitute for persuasive legal arguments, the court must GRANT Defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The court also must DENY Campbell's three motions, largely for improper procedure. The court GRANTS Campbell leave to amend as to Docket Nos. 22, 30 and 81.


Campbell is a resident of Mountain View, California.[2] Due to an infected foot and injured spine, he was admitted to the hospital and later transferred in and out of various skilled nursing facilities.[3] As a participant of the Senior Advantage MA Plan ("MA Plan") offered by Kaiser Permanente, Campbell was entitled to skilled nursing coverage for up to 100 days.[4]

On June 25, 2012, while Campbell was still receiving care, Kaiser's MA organization notified Campbell that he had exhausted his Medicare coverage for skilled nursing facilities.[5] After reconsideration by the MA organization and subsequent review by a qualified independent contractor, Campbell again was denied further coverage.[6] An administrative law judge affirmed the denial.[7] Campbell then appealed to the Medicare Appeals Council, which affirmed the ALJ's decision.[8]

Campbell next filed this suit against President Barack Obama, Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Burwell, Kaiser Health Foundation/VA Clacher ("Kaiser"), Los Altos Sub-Acute/J. Alvarez, Santa Clara County Welfare's Robert Brizuela and Patricia Melenudo, Shorebreeze Apartment/Martha Ray, Senior Adults Legal Assistance/Michele Schroeder ("SALA") and the State Bar of California/Director ("the State Bar").[9] Based on Campbell's request in his papers, [10] the court dismissed nine Defendants at a hearing on December 6, 2014.[11] Defendants Burwell and Obama, the State Bar, SALA and Kaiser remain.


This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.[12] The parties further consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).[13]


The court considers each pending motion in turn, beginning with Defendants' motions to dismiss.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) provides that a court may grant a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction any time.[14] Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) provides that the plaintiff must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."[15] A plaintiff must allege facts that add up to "more than a sheer possibility" that the defendant acted unlawfully.[16] While a "heightened fact pleading of specifics" is not required, the plaintiff must still allege facts sufficient to "raise a right to relief above the speculative level."[17] "A pleading that offers labels and conclusions' or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'"[18] "Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertion[s]' devoid of further factual enhancement.'"[19] In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must accept as true all facts alleged in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.[20] A court is not required to accept as true "allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences."[21] If the court dismisses a complaint, it must decide whether to grant leave to amend. Leave should be granted even if no such request was made, unless the pleadings could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.[22]

Campbell alleges that (1) the State Bar and SALA violated the Eighth Amendment in denying him legal representation and assistance, (2) the State Bar and attorney Karen Goldberg conspired to "obstruct justice and due administration of the law, " (3) Burwell violated the Eighth Amendment in denying him Medicare for a skilled nursing facility, (4) Obama violated his constitutional duty to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act when Campbell was allegedly discriminated against during administrative proceedings and (5) the undersigned, the State Bar, the California Supreme Court, the Sixth District Court of Appeals of California and the Santa Clara Superior Court conspired to "obstruct justice and the due administration of law.

Regarding the State Bar, Campbell does not allege facts sufficient to "raise a right to relief above the speculative level"[23] as he references the State Bar once in his complaint and never in his opposition.[24] But even if Campbell's claim rises above speculation, the State Bar is a state constitutional entity established by Article VI, Section 9 of the California Constitution.[25] The State Bar assists the California Supreme Court in administrative matters such as attorney admission and discipline, whereas the Court retains the authority to admit, suspend or disbar attorneys.[26] Under the Eleventh Amendment, a plaintiff may not sue a state or its agencies in federal court without consent.[27] Here, the State Bar has not given consent.[28] The court therefore does not possess subject matter jurisdiction.[29]

Regarding SALA, Campbell alleges only that SALA declined to represent him.[30] There is no discussion as to how SALA denied Campbell legal representation, nor is it clear such denial constitutes a ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.