John Schneck v. David Yamamoto , 475 F. App'x 256 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            AUG 15 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JOHN A. SCHNECK,                                 No. 11-15893
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03329-MCE-
    DAD
    v.
    DAVID E. YAMAMOTO, Chief                         MEMORANDUM *
    Executive Officer Sutter North Medical
    Foundation,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted August 8, 2012 **
    Before:        ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    John A. Schneck appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
    dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from his termination as a patient by
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Sutter North Medical Foundation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
    We review de novo, Caviness v. Horizon Cmty. Learning Ctr., Inc., 
    590 F.3d 806
    ,
    811-12 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Schneck’s § 1983 action because
    Schneck failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant was acting under
    color of state law. See id. at 812, 815 (state action is a required element of a
    § 1983 claim, and mere fact that a private entity performs a function that serves the
    public does not make its acts state action); Ascherman v. Presbyterian Hosp. of
    Pac. Med. Ctr., Inc., 
    507 F.2d 1103
    , 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1974) (private hospital’s
    receipt of public funds and tax exempt status as a charitable organization
    insufficient to establish state action).
    Schneck’s contentions regarding judicial bias are unpersuasive. See Taylor
    v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 
    993 F.2d 710
    , 712 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)
    (adverse rulings alone are insufficient to demonstrate judicial bias).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                       11-15893
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-15893

Citation Numbers: 475 F. App'x 256

Judges: Alarcon, Berzon, Ikuta

Filed Date: 8/15/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023