Coston v. Rahimifar et al

Filing 24

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS that Court Deny 16 Letter Motion to Dismiss signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 10/23/2018. Referred to Judge O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 11/26/2018.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
DANIEL MURPHY COSTON,

9

Case No. 1:17-cv-00765-JDP

Plaintiff,

10

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT COURT DENY LETTER MOTION
TO DISMISS

v.

11
12

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

MAJID RAHIMIFAR and MUSHTAQ
AHMED,

13

ECF No. 16

1

Defendants.

14

ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE OF
DOCUMENTS AND ASSIGNING CASE TO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17

Plaintiff Daniel Murphy Coston, a state prisoner, proceeds without counsel in this civil

18

rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds against Majid Rahimifar, a

19

surgeon, and Mushtaq Ahmed, a doctor, on deliberate-indifference claims under the Eighth

20

Amendment, alleging denial of adequate medical care. He alleges that defendant Rahimifar

21

told him that he would need to stay at a hospital for two to three days to recover from his

22

cervical discectomy, but that Rahimifar later discharged him from the hospital merely hours

23

after the surgery. ECF No. 11 at 3-4. Plaintiff further alleges that a hospital admitted him

24

when an unidentified complication arose following surgery and that defendant Ahmed

25

discharged him within hours of plaintiff’s admission to the hospital. Id. at 4. This order

26
27
28

1

This case caption has been amended to reflect defendant Mushtaq Ahmed’s full name, and the
order below will direct the clerk of court to amend the case caption.

1

1

concerns a letter from Ahmed requesting dismissal.

2

I.

Ahmed’s letter motion
Ahmed, without an attorney, has filed a one-page letter asking the court to dismiss this

3

case. He states in his letter:

4
5

Mr. Coston is an inmate of Corcoran Correction facility. I was one
of the physicians on his case, but I was not the surgeon.

6

Mr. Coston is complaining that he was discharged too soon after the
surgery. It should be noted that the length of an inmate’s hospital
stay is determined by the correctional facility (Corcoran) and the
charge nurse of the hospital (Mercy Hospital of Bakersfield) and not
by the physician. Hence, I request that the case be dismissed while
the response should be forthcoming from the responsible parties
(Corcoran Correctional Facility and Mercy Hospital Charge Nurse).

7
8
9
10

ECF 16. Ahmed presents no evidence supporting his statements.

11
12

The court should deny Ahmed’s letter motion, which we construe as a motion for

13

summary judgment.2 The court should not dismiss the case on the basis of an unsubstantiated

14

claim that unidentified individuals at plaintiff’s prison or hospital—rather than defendant—

15

determined the duration of plaintiff’s hospital stay. Because Ahmed has not supported his

16

factual assertions, he has not shown either the absence of a genuine dispute of any material fact

17

or entitlement to summary judgment, so the court should deny his letter motion. See

18

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The court should deny the motion without prejudice and allow him to

19

raise the same defense later in the case, as Ahmed has filed his motion without the assistance

20

of counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Likewise, because Ahmed does not have an attorney,

21

the court should not deem him to have waived any defenses—Rules 12(g)(2) and 12(h)(1)

22

notwithstanding.

23
24
2

The letter asserts a defense not enumerated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, and
Ahmed needs to plead and prove the asserted defense; a motion for summary judgment would
26 be the appropriate vehicle for such a defense. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d); Albino v. Baca, 747
F.3d 1162, 1168-71 (9th Cir. 2014) (reasoning that motion for summary judgment, not motion
27 to dismiss, is appropriate procedural vehicle when motion refers to defense that is not
numerated under Rule 12 and defendant must plead and prove asserted defense).
28
25

2

`

Ahmed’s letter suggests that plaintiff has sued the wrong defendants, and Rule 19(a)

1
2

requires the court to join any required party to the action. Ahmed, however, has not properly

3

supported his factual assertions with evidence, so it is premature to consider whether other

4

individuals should be joined as defendants.

5

II.

6

Other matters
We end by addressing three other issues. First, the docket designates this case as a matter

7

in which the parties have consented to a magistrate judge’s jurisdiction, but this appears to be

8

an error: Ahmed has not consented. Because not all parties have consented to the jurisdiction

9

of a magistrate judge, Ahmed’s letter motion requires a district judge’s ruling and review of

10

findings and recommendations.

11

Second, it appears that Ahmed has not been receiving court orders. Ahmed appears pro

12

se and does not receive notices of electronic filings, so he should be served by a conventional

13

method of service. See Local Rule 135(b). The docket does not show that either the

14

scheduling order or the order regarding consent to a magistrate judge’s jurisdiction has been

15

served on Ahmed. The order below will direct the clerk of court to mail these orders to

16

Ahmed.

17

Third, certain claims in the original complaint were dismissed by a magistrate judge

18

without findings and recommendations. ECF No. 10. If Ahmed does not consent to the

19

jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, the screening of the original complaint will be addressed

20

through findings and recommendations.

21

III. Findings and recommendations

22

The court should deny defendant Mushtaq Ahmed’s letter motion to dismiss, ECF No.

23

16, without prejudice. These findings and recommendations are submitted to a U.S. district

24

judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within 30 days of the service of

25

the findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections to the findings and

26

recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document must be

27

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding

28

district judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C.

3

`

1

§ 636(b)(1)(C). The parties’ failure to object within the specified time may waive their rights

2

on appeal. See Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).

3

IV. Order

4

1. The clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a district judge who will review these
findings and recommendations.

5
6

2. The clerk of court is directed to mail the following documents to defendant Mushtaq
Ahmed:

7
8

a. a copy of the order reassigning this case, ECF 17,

9

b. a copy of the discovery and scheduling order, ECF 20, and
c. a form order regarding consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge or request

10

for reassignment.

11
12

3. The clerk of court is directed to amend the case caption to reflect defendant Mushtaq
Ahmed’s full name.

13
14

4. If the presiding judge adopts these findings and recommendations, an answer or a

15

responsive motion by defendant Mushtaq Ahmed is due within 21 days from the date of

16

the adoption.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
Dated:

October 23, 2018

20

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

`