United States District Court, E.D. California
RICHARD C. SAPIEN, Plaintiff,
AUDREY CHAPPELLE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF
NO. 1) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30)
MICHAEL J. SENG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.
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).
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.
brings this action against Audrey Chappelle, “Sedgwick
Claim Management [unintelligible]”; Jeremy Lusk,
Attorney; Tobin-Lucks LLP; Foster Farms, Cherry Plant, Inc.;
and Stericycle, Inc.
allegations, which are factually sparse, may be fairly
summarized as follows:
who worked at Foster Farms “Cherry Plant” during
an unspecified period of time, broke his collar bone on
November 15, 2011.
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.
asserts jurisdiction is proper in this Court under diversity
citizenship and federal question-specifically, the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
does not specify the relief that he seeks.