Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Sapien v. Chappelle

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 21, 2017

RICHARD C. SAPIEN, Plaintiff,
v.
AUDREY CHAPPELLE, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 1) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS

          MICHAEL J. SENG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed on June 24, 2016. Plaintiff's complaint is before the Court for screening.

         I. Screening Requirement

         The in forma pauperis statute provides, “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

         II. Pleading Standard

         A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78.

         III. Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff brings this action against Audrey Chappelle, “Sedgwick Claim Management [unintelligible]”; Jeremy Lusk, Attorney; Tobin-Lucks LLP; Foster Farms, Cherry Plant, Inc.; and Stericycle, Inc.

         Plaintiff's allegations, which are factually sparse, may be fairly summarized as follows:

         Plaintiff, who worked at Foster Farms “Cherry Plant” during an unspecified period of time, broke his collar bone on November 15, 2011.

         Plaintiff accuses (1) Stericycle of failing to inform Plaintiff about a “Q.M.E.” report from July 5, 2007, and (2) Foster Farms of failing to inform Plaintiff about a “Q.M.E.” report from October 13, 2014. According to Plaintiff, a “Q.M.E. is a certified doctor that dispute [sic] difference between emplo[y]er and employee and always be followed with the request of the Q.M.E. for the employee.” Compl. at 6.

         Plaintiff asserts jurisdiction is proper in this Court under diversity citizenship and federal question-specifically, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”).

         Plaintiff does not specify the relief that he seeks.

         IV. ...


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.