Samuels v. Ahlin et al

Filing 100

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that that the County's 91 Motion to Dismiss be Denied signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 09/04/2018. Referred to Judge Drozd; Objections to F&R due by 9/24/2018.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

DOUGAL SAMUELS,
Plaintiff,

11

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THE COUNTY’S
MOTION TO DISMISS BE DENIED

v.

12
13

Case No. 1:10-cv-00585-DAD-EPG (PC)

PAM AHLIN, et al.,

(ECF NO. 91)

Defendants.

14

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

15
16

I.

17

Dougal Samuels (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds

19

on Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, which was filed on July 15, 2016. (ECF No. 40).

20

BACKGROUND

On February 5, 2018, real party in interest County of Fresno, on behalf of Fresno

21

County Board Members Brian Pacheco, Sal Quintero, Andres Borgeas, Nathan Magsig, and

22

Buddy Mendes (“the County”), filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 91, 91, & 93). On May

23

15, 2018, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 98). On May 21, 2018, the

24

County filed its reply. (ECF No. 99).

25

As discussed below, the Court will recommend that the County’s motion to dismiss be

26

denied because the Ninth Circuit has already ruled that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim and

27

directed that the County be ordered to file an answer.

28

///
1

1

II.

2

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on November 2, 2012. (ECF No. 15).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

3

Plaintiff alleged that Defendants knew of the dangers of Valley Fever, yet constructed Coalinga

4

State Hospital, and/or allowed Coalinga State Hospital to be constructed, in a Valley Fever

5

endemic area. Plaintiff also alleged that Defendants failed to properly monitor the conditions

6

which caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

7

On May 3, 2013, Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin (the assigned magistrate judge at the

8

time) issued an order dismissing this case for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 16). The

9

Fresno County Board of Supervisors1 was dismissed because Plaintiff failed to sufficiently

10
11

allege that it participated in the deprivation of his constitutional rights. (Id. at 6-7).
Plaintiff appealed. (ECF No. 18). On August 21, 2014, the United States Court of

12

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order that allowed the case to proceed on Plaintiff’s

13

safe conditions claim, stating that “dismissal of Samuels’s safe conditions claim was premature.

14

Samuels alleged that defendants knew of the life-threatening risk of building Coalinga State

15

Hospital in a highly endemic area for valley fever, but nonetheless approved or failed to stop

16

the facility’s construction. These allegations, liberally construed, were sufficient to warrant

17

ordering [defendants] to file an answer.” (ECF No. 22, p. 3) (alteration in original) (citation

18

and internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, the Ninth Circuit held that Plaintiff “is not

19

barred from bringing suit against the members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors in

20

their official capacity.” (Id.).

21

On June 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a “motion to provide the Court with the John Doe

22

defendants as requested” (ECF No. 31), which was granted on October 9, 2015 (ECF No. 32).

23

A Second Amended Complaint was then filed, but it omitted previously named defendants.

24

(ECF No. 36). After the Court issued an order requesting clarification (ECF No. 37), and

25

Plaintiff’s assertion that the previously named defendants were supposed to be included (ECF

26

No. 38), the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.

27
28

1
Board Members Brian Pacheco, Sal Quintero, Andres Borgeas, Nathan Magsig, and Buddy Mendes
were substituted into this case in place of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors on October 24, 2017.

2

1

(ECF No. 39).

2

On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 40), which

3

was screened (ECF Nos. 41, 87, & 90). This case is now proceeding on Plaintiff’s Third

4

Amended Complaint against defendants Pam Ahlin, Stephen Mayberg, Brian Pacheco, Sal

5

Quintero, Andres Borgeas, Nathan Magsig, Buddy Mendes, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Audrey

6

King, Brandon Price, Ron Withrow, Kiran Hundal, Ron Howard, and Cynthia Radavasky for

7

violation of Plaintiff’s right to safe conditions under the Due Process Clause. (Id.). As the

8

County of Fresno has appeared on behalf of Brian Pacheco, Sal Quintero, Andres Borgeas,

9

Nathan Magsig, and Buddy Mendes, the Court will refer to these defendants collectively as

10

“the County.”

11

III.

12

a. Summary of Third Amended Complaint

13
14

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY

Plaintiff is an African-American male, currently civilly detained at Coalinga State
Hospital (“CSH”) in Coalinga, California.

15

Plaintiff alleges that the County was aware of dangerous conditions at CSH but took no

16

protective measures for his health and safety to prevent Plaintiff’s infection by the disease

17

known as Valley Fever. Plaintiff alleges that on February 16, 2006, he was transferred to CSH.

18

There were rumors and scientific information that the area surrounding CSH was extremely

19

lethal because Valley Fever spores were known to be in the soil. Plaintiff and other detainees

20

were assured by employees that the environment was not life threatening, and because the

21

hospital was a hermetically sealed environment, the chance of contracting an infection was a

22

million to one. Plaintiff became infected with Valley Fever a year after his transfer.

23

The County was told of the future dangers of Valley Fever before the ground was

24

broken to build CSH, but did not stop construction of the hospital. Plaintiff alleges that the

25

County knew or should have known about the risks to patients contracting Valley Fever at

26

CSH, but failed to stop construction of CSH or implement measures to lessen the risk of

27

infection by Valley Fever at CSH.

28

///
3

1

IV.

THE COUNTY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
a. The County’s Position

2
3

The County argues that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be

4

granted. (ECF No. 91, p. 1). The County asks that the claim against it be dismissed, without

5

leave to amend. (Id. at 5). In support of its motion to dismiss, the County requests that the

6

Court take judicial notice of county records related to the dates Andres Borgeas, Sal Quintero,

7

Nathan Magsig, Brian Pacheco, and Buddy Mendes held County offices (ECF No. 92, p. 3), as

8

well as websites listing when construction on CSH began and when CSH opened (ECF No. 93,

9

p. 2).

10

According to the County, the Ninth Circuit, in reversing this Court, did not direct the

11

County to file an answer. (ECF No. 91, pgs. 2-3). Additionally, none of the named members

12

of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors was a member at the time of the alleged

13

constitutional violation. (Id. at 12-13). Moreover, as other courts have held when dealing with

14

similar factual allegations, Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory, speculative, and are not linked

15

to any specific board member. (Id. at 4-5 & 13-15). Thus, Plaintiff’s allegations are

16

insufficient to state a Monell claim against the County. (Id. at 5).

17

Finally, the County argues that leave to amend would be futile because there is no

18

possible factual basis for Plaintiff to state a claim, because the County would be entitled to

19

legislative immunity, and because the County had no legal authority to stop the State of

20

California from building CSH where the State chose to build it. (Id. at 15-18).
b. Plaintiff’s Position

21
22

First, Plaintiff argues that the County is time barred from filing a motion to dismiss

23

because it failed to contest this Court’s findings and recommendations issued on July 24, 2017

24

(ECF No. 74) and failed to object to the district court’s decision on December 28, 2017 (ECF

25

No. 88). (ECF No. 98, p. 4).

26

Second, Plaintiff argues that the Ninth Circuit has already ruled on the issues raised by

27

the County, and that decision is binding on this Court. (Id. at 5-7).

28

///
4

1
2

c. Legal Standard for Motions to Dismiss
In considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all allegations of material fact

3

in the complaint as true. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93–94 (2007); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v.

4

Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). The Court must also construe the alleged facts

5

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974),

6

abrogated on other grounds by Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982); Barnett v. Centoni,

7

31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). All ambiguities or doubts must also be resolved

8

in the plaintiff's favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). In addition, pro

9

se pleadings “must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by

10

lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se complaints

11

should continue to be liberally construed after Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)).

12

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) operates to test the sufficiency of the

13

complaint. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Rule 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement

14

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” in order to “give the defendant fair

15

notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

16

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). “The

17

issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to

18

offer evidence to support the claims.” Scheuer, 416 U.S. at 236 (1974).

19

The first step in testing the sufficiency of the complaint is to identify any conclusory

20

allegations. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,

21

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550

22

U.S. at 555). “[A] plaintiff=s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief

23

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause

24

of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations and quotation marks omitted).

25

After assuming the veracity of all well-pleaded factual allegations, the second step is for

26

the court to determine whether the complaint pleads “a claim to relief that is plausible on its

27

face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556) (rejecting the traditional

28

12(b)(6) standard set forth in Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-46). A claim is facially plausible when
5

1

the plaintiff “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that

2

the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at

3

556). The standard for plausibility is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it requires

4

“more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id.

5

In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court generally may not consider materials

6

outside the complaint and pleadings. Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir. 1998);

7

Gumataotao v. Dir. of Dep't of Revenue & Taxation, 236 F.3d 1077, 1083 (9th Cir. 2001).

8

d. Analysis

9

To begin, the Court notes that the County did not waive its right to file a motion to

10

dismiss by failing to object to earlier findings and recommendations and an order. In fact, the

11

County had not been appropriately served at the time the findings and recommendations or the

12

order were entered. Accordingly, the Court will address the County’s motion to dismiss.

13

The County is correct that Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain a detailed account of

14

what Stephen Mayberg, Brian Pacheco, Sal Quintero, Andres Borgeas, Nathan Magsig, or

15

Buddy Mendes allegedly did that violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and that other courts

16

have dismissed similar allegations for failure to state a claim. In fact, the magistrate judge in

17

this case (then Judge Austin) also dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, with prejudice, for failure to

18

state a claim. (ECF No. 16).

19

However, that decision was reversed in part by the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 22). And,

20

contrary to the County’s assertion, the Ninth clearly referred to the claims against the County in

21

its order directing that this case be allowed to proceed. The Ninth Circuit stated that “dismissal

22

of Samuels’s safe conditions claim was premature. Samuels alleged that defendants knew of

23

the life-threatening risk of building Coalinga State Hospital in a highly endemic area for valley

24

fever, but nonetheless approved or failed to stop the facility’s construction. These allegations,

25

liberally construed, were sufficient to warrant ordering [defendants] to file an answer. (ECF

26

No. 22, p. 3) (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (citations and internal quotation marks

27

omitted). Plaintiff’s claim against the County involves the allegation that that the County failed

28

to prevent CSH from being constructed, an allegation the Ninth Circuit clearly addressed in its
6

1

order and found sufficient for the Court to order the County to file an answer.

2

The County argues that the Ninth Circuit’s instruction only applied to the state

3

defendants, not to the County. (ECF No. 91, p. 2). To support this argument, the County

4

points out that the cases cited in that section of the Ninth Circuit’s order only involved state

5

defendants, not local governments.

6

Circuit’s citations. The Ninth Circuit clearly ordered “[defendants]” to file an answer, and did

7

not differentiate between state and local defendants.

However, the County reads too much into the Ninth

8

Accordingly, Plaintiff is correct that the Ninth Circuit’s order precluded the County

9

from filing a motion to dismiss arguing that Plaintiff failed to state a claim, and this Court will

10

not second guess the clear language in the Ninth Circuit’s order.

11

Of course, the Court is not deciding whether the County is entitled to

12

legislative/qualified immunity,2 or whether the County had any authority to prevent the State of

13

California from building CSH. These issues require a more developed factual record, and thus

14

should be addressed at a later stage in the proceedings.

15

The Court notes that the County may be correct that none of the named members of the

16

Fresno County Board of Supervisors was a member at the time of the alleged constitutional

17

violation. However, this is not relevant at this time. As the County itself points out, Plaintiff’s

18

official capacity action against the individual board members “is ‘only another way of pleading

19

an action against [the] entity of which [the Board Members are] an agent.’” (ECF No. 91, p. 9

20

(quoting Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55)). Thus, it

21

does not matter whether Plaintiff named the current Board Members in their official capacity or

22

previous Board Members in their official capacity, because either way the suit will proceed

23

against the entity of which the Board Members were/are an agent: the County of Fresno.

24

V.

25

Because the Ninth Circuit has already ruled that Plaintiff stated a claim and directed that

26

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

the County be ordered to file an answer, the County’s motion to dismiss should be denied.

27
28

2
The County argues that it is entitled to legislative immunity, but at least one of the cases it cites to deals
with qualified immunity, not legislative immunity.

7

1
2
3

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the
County’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 91) be DENIED.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge

4

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

5

(14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

6

written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to

7

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be

8

served and filed within seven (7) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

9

that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on

10

appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan,

11

923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 4, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8