Quezada v. Sherman et al

Filing 52

ORDER ADOPTING 48 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING in Part Defendant's 41 Motion to Dismiss, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/15/2021. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALVARO QUEZADA,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

AKABIKE, et al.,

15
16

No. 1:18-cv-00797-DAD-JLT (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING IN
PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS
Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 41, 48)

17
18

Plaintiff Alvaro Quezada is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

19

this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United

20

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

This matter proceeds on plaintiff’s third amended complaint (Doc. No. 29) on claims of

22

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against defendants Akabike, Ceja, and Harris.

23

(Doc. No. 36.) On September 29, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

24

recommendations, recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and

25

denied in part. (Doc. No. 48.) (Id. at 3–4.) The magistrate judge found that plaintiff stated

26

cognizable claims of deliberate indifference with respect to his first and second claims, but failed

27

to state a cognizable claim with respect to his third claim because plaintiff failed to allege facts

28

showing that he was harmed as a result of defendant Ceja’s alleged refusal to activate his medical
1

1

emergency alarm after plaintiff’s second fall when defendant Harris activated his alarm

2

immediately thereafter. (Id. at 3–4, 10.) Regarding plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim

3

related to defendants Ceja and Harris’s refusal to move plaintiff to a lower-tier cell and forcing

4

him to walk down stairs where he fell a second time, the magistrate judge found that a more

5

developed factual record is required to conclusively determine whether defendants Ceja and

6

Harris are entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 11–12.) The findings and recommendations

7

were served on the parties and provided 21 days to file objections thereto. (Id. at 13.) Plaintiff

8

filed objections on October 25, 2021, and defendants filed a response thereto on November 8,

9

2021. (Doc. Nos. 49, 51.) Defendants have not filed objections to the pending findings and

10

recommendations, and the time to do so has passed.
Although plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that his third claim

11
12

for relief be dismissed, plaintiff does not meaningfully call into question the finding that his third

13

amended complaint fails to plead facts, if proven, showing that plaintiff was harmed as a result of

14

defendant Ceja’s alleged failure to activate his medical emergency alarm. In his objections,

15

plaintiff conflates his second and third claims, and focuses on defendants’ alleged misconduct, as

16

opposed to the harm allegedly caused by the misconduct specifically alleged in his third claim for

17

relief. (See Doc. No. 49 at 2–6.) Where plaintiff does allege harm, his allegations are conclusory

18

and not supported by adequate factual allegations. (Id.) See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

19

(2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

20

statements, do not suffice.”) (citation omitted). Given that plaintiff has not only failed to plead

21

sufficient facts in his claim 3 showing that he was harmed as a result of defendant Ceja’s alleged

22

actions or inaction in his third amended complaint, but also has failed to suggest that he could

23

allege such facts in his opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss and in his objections to the

24

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, the court finds that plaintiff would be unable

25

to plead sufficient facts to cure this deficiency in a fourth amended complaint. Therefore,

26

because the granting of further leave to amend would be futile, plaintiff’s third claim will be

27

dismissed without leave to amend. See Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1213 (9th Cir. 2012).

28

/////
2

1

Lastly, plaintiff’s objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation regarding qualified

2

immunity is misplaced. The magistrate judge recommended that defendants’ motion to dismiss

3

on qualified-immunity grounds be denied. (Doc. No. 48 at 12.) Such denial at the pleading stage

4

does not preclude defendants from moving for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds

5

following the conducting of discovery in this action.

6

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

7

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including plaintiff’s objections,

8

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

9

analysis.

10

Accordingly,

11

1.

12
13

The findings and recommendations issued on September 29, 2021 (Doc. No. 48)
are adopted in full;

2.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s third amended complaint (Doc. No. 41)

14

is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

15

a.

Plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference against defendant Ceja based

16

upon defendant Ceja’s alleged refusal to activate his medical emergency

17

alarm is dismissed without leave to amend;

18

b.

19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff’s remaining claims of deliberate indifference will be permitted to
proceed with defendants’ motion to dismiss otherwise being denied; and

3.

This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 15, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
3