Moreno v. Beddome et al

Filing 26

ORDER The reference is withdrawn as to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16 ). Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) is denied. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/2/2012.(KMG)

1
2

JWB

WO

3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Oscar Shaun Moreno,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

CJ Beddome, et al.,

13

Defendants.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 11-2333-PHX-DGC (SPL)
ORDER

15

Plaintiff Oscar Shaun Moreno brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

16

against Maricopa County and three employees of the Fourth Avenue Jail (Doc. 1). Before

17

the Court is Defendants’ fully-briefed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16). The Court will deny the

18

motion.

19

I.

Background

20

Plaintiff’s claim arose during his confinement as a pretrial detainee in Maricopa

21

County’s Fourth Avenue Jail. Plaintiff alleged that in late June 2011, a small golf-ball-sized

22

hernia tore and became baseball-sized, causing extreme pain (id. at 3 ¶ 1). Plaintiff claimed

23

that when he eventually saw a medical provider, immediate surgery was recommended but

24

was not provided (id. ¶ 2). Further, he averred that he was denied medical care and

25

Correctional Health Services allowed his pain medication to run out on more than one

26

occasion (id.). Plaintiff claimed that because of the delay in receiving treatment he suffered

27

increasing pain and his hernia became softball-sized (id. ¶ 3). Plaintiff alleged that

28

Defendants had the power and authority to ensure he received the necessary hernia surgery,

1

but they failed to act (id. ¶ 5). With respect to Maricopa County, Plaintiff asserted that a

2

policy exists which is designed to deny and delay medical care to inmates. Plaintiff sought

3

compensatory and punitive damages (id. at 6 ¶ 1).
The Court ordered Defendants Beddome, Downs, Garitson, and Maricopa County to

4
5

respond to the (Doc. 5).1 They move to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Doc. 16).

6

II.

Legal Standard

7

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint. North

8

Star Int’l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). Dismissal of the

9

complaint, or any claim within it, may be based on either a “‘lack of a cognizable legal

10

theory’ or ‘the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.’” Johnson

11

v. Riverside Healthcare System LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting

12

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)).

13

“While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be

14

supported by factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. ----, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950

15

(2009). The complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible

16

on its face.” Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible if

17

the facts pled allow the court to make the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable.

18

Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must

19

contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

20

relief.”

21

In determining whether a complaint states a claim under this standard, the allegations

22

in the complaint must be construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

23

Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir.1996). Pro se pleadings,

24

“however inartfully pleaded,” must be held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings

25

drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Ortez v. Washington

26
27
28

1

Upon screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court dismissed Count II for
failure to state a claim and Defendant Arpaio, Correctional Health Services, Medical Staff
1 to 20, and Detention Staff 1 to 20 as Defendants (Doc. 5).
-2-

1

County, 88 F.3d 804, 807 (9th Cir. 1996). The rule of liberal construction of pleadings is

2

“particularly important in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th

3

Cir. 1992).

4

Finally, a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is almost never an appropriate

5

response when the court has already screened a prisoner complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

6

§1915A(b) and directed the defendant to respond. The standard for dismissal under Rule

7

12(b)(6) (“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”) is identical to the

8

standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (“fail[ure] to state a claim upon which relief may be

9

granted”). After the Court has screened a prisoner complaint pursuant to § 1915A(b), a Rule

10

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss will be granted only if the defendant can convince the Court that

11

reconsideration is appropriate.

12

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders

13

of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Mere disagreement with

14

a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels

15

Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask the

16

court to rethink what it has already thought through. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.

17

Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998). Reconsideration is only appropriate if the district court

18

“(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial

19

decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.”

20

School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

21

“No motion for reconsideration shall repeat in any manner any oral or written argument made

22

in support of or in opposition to the original motion.” Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers

23

Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003).

24

III.

Analysis

25

Defendants’ primary contention is that grievances filed by Plaintiff and the

26

Correctional Health Service’s grievance policy show that no deliberate indifference occurred

27

(Doc. 16 at 5-13). The motion is essentially a motion for summary judgment. Defendants

28

argue that the grievances and grievance policy were necessarily incorporated by reference
-3-

1

in Plaintiff’s Complaint and can be relied on in granting their motion to dismiss, but a careful

2

review of Plaintiff’s pleading reveals no mention of these documents (Doc. 1 at 3-A ¶ 5).

3

Moreover, the documents require interpretation and analysis, unlike the SEC documents at

4

issue in the case cited by Defendants. See U.S. v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).

5

Defendants themselves underscore this point by engaging in more than seven pages of

6

analysis of Plaintiff’s medical care on the basis of information found in the grievances.

7

Granting Defendants’ motion would require the Court to evaluate the appropriateness of

8

Plaintiff’s medical care on the basis of the grievance responses and without the benefit of

9

Plaintiff’s medical records or affidavits of medical personnel, and without providing Plaintiff

10

an opportunity to conduct discovery. Defendants’ motion to dismiss will therefore be denied.

11

Defendants alternatively argue that Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a

12

claim of deliberate indifference. As noted, however, the Court has already screened the

13

Complaint under a standard identical to that found in Rule 12(b)(6) and has determined that

14

the Complaint sufficiently states a claim for relief. Moreover, Defendants ignore the

15

requirement that pro se pleadings must be construed liberally. See Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d

16

1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 2008).

17

IT IS ORDERED:

18

(1) The reference is withdrawn as to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16).

19

(2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) is denied.

20

DATED this 2nd day of August, 2012.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-