Gomez v. Acharya et al
Filing
39
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 07/11/19 GRANTING 35 Motion to Amend; GRANTING 37 Request for Screening of the first amended complaint. Acharya, Liu, Enriquez, Limpiado and Salud must respo nd to the first amended complaint 36 within 30 days of service of this order. Also, GRANTING 38 motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order. The deadlines in the 6/25/19 discovery and scheduling order 34 are vacated and will be re-set once defendants have responded to the first amended complaint. Also, RECOMMENDING that the claims against defendant Ladan be dismissed without prejudice to being brought in a separate action. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 21 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
EDWARD GOMEZ,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:17-cv-2407 MCE CKD P
v.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
ACHARYA, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
17
18
§ 1983, has filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, along with a copy of the
19
proposed amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 35, 36.) Defendants have requested that the court
20
screen the amended complaint (ECF No. 37) and modify the current discovery and scheduling
21
order (ECF No. 38).
22
23
I.
First Amended Complaint
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) provides that “[a] party may amend its
24
pleading once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after service of a responsive pleading.”
25
Defendants answered the complaint on June 18, 2019 (ECF No. 33), and plaintiff’s motion to
26
amend and proposed amended complaint were filed within twenty-one days of service of the
27
answer (ECF Nos. 35, 36). Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to amend the complaint as a matter
28
of course and his request to amend will be granted.
1
With respect to defendants’ request for screening of the amended complaint, the court is
1
2
required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or
3
officer or employee of a governmental entity, and must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if
4
the prisoner has raised claims that are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which
5
relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
6
such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b). Defendants’ request for screening will therefore be
7
granted.
8
9
The complaint alleges that defendants Acharya, Liu, Enriquez, Limpiado, Salud, and
Ladan,1 who are all registered nurses, were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical
10
need on four separate occasions. (ECF No. 36 at 3-8.) “[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment
11
claim based on prison medical treatment, an inmate must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious
12
medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble,
13
429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). This requires plaintiff to show (1) “a ‘serious medical need’ by
14
demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury
15
or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant’s response to the need
16
was deliberately indifferent.” Id. (some internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting McGuckin v.
17
Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992)).
18
Plaintiff alleges that due to his quadriplegia he is required to use a catheter and, as a result,
19
experiences autonomic dysreflexia when his bladder is beyond capacity (90 cc). (ECF No. 36
20
at 3.) The symptoms include “Dry Sweats, Spasms, Shaking, [and] Extremely High Blood
21
Pressure,” and are alleviated when his catheter is flushed. (Id.) The complaint asserts that
22
defendants failed to properly respond when plaintiff began to experience autonomic dysreflexia.
23
In addition to the two incidents described in the original complaint, the amended complaint adds
24
two additional incidents and one additional defendant. Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the first
25
1
26
27
28
As with the original complaint, the first amended complaint discusses the actions of a number
of other medical providers. However, none of them are identified as defendants and will not be
treated as such. Plaintiff was previously advised that if he wanted to bring claims against any
other individuals, he would have to clearly identify them as defendants. The court takes no
position as to whether plaintiff would have viable claims against any individuals other than the
named defendants.
2
1
two incidents, which occurred on January 1, 2017, and February 11, 2017, are nearly identical to
2
the allegations in the original complaint (compare ECF No. 1 at 6-10 with ECF No. 36 at 3-6) and
3
state claims for deliberate indifference against defendants Acharya, Liu, Enriquez, Limpiado, and
4
Salud as outlined in the January 3, 2019 screening order (ECF No. 10).
5
During the third incident, which occurred on March 23, 2017, plaintiff began
6
experiencing symptoms of autonomic dysreflexia and requested assistance via intercom. (Id. at
7
6.) Defendant Limpiado refused to respond to plaintiff’s request and continued to refuse to flush
8
his catheter until over two hours later when ordered to do so by a doctor. (Id.) These allegations
9
are sufficient to state a claim for relief against Limpiado.
10
The fourth incident plaintiff alleges occurred on January 23, 2018, and involved newly
11
added defendant Ladan. (Id. at 8.) However, it will be recommended that these claims and
12
defendant Ladan be dismissed because they are improperly joined. Multiple claims may be
13
joined if they are all against a single defendant, Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), and joinder of defendants is
14
only permitted if “any right to relief is asserted against them . . . with respect to or arising out of
15
the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and any question of law
16
or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. In other words,
17
joining more than one claim is only proper when it is against one defendant, and joining multiple
18
defendants in one complaint is only proper when the action is based on the same facts. Here, the
19
incident with defendant Ladan occurred ten months after the last incident with the other
20
defendants and did not involve any of the other defendants. Accordingly, there are no grounds on
21
which to join either the new claims or the defendant.
22
When parties are misjoined, “the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.
23
The court may also sever any claim against a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. “[D]istrict courts who
24
dismiss rather than sever must conduct a prejudice analysis, including ‘loss of otherwise timely
25
claims if new suits are blocked by statutes of limitations.’” Rush v. Sport Chalet, Inc., 779 F.3d
26
973, 975 (9th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). In this case, the court finds that dismissal of
27
defendant Ladan is appropriate. The incident involving Ladan occurred on January 23, 2018, and
28
the statute of limitations for claims under § 1983 is two years, plus an additional two years of
3
1
tolling if plaintiff’s sentence is for less than life. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir.
2
2004); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1(a). Therefore, even if plaintiff
3
is serving a life sentence and is not entitled to the additional two years of tolling, he has ample
4
time to initiate a new complaint against Ladan related to the January 23, 2018 incident, should he
5
choose to do so. Accordingly, there is no prejudice to plaintiff in dismissing the claims against
6
Ladan without prejudice to re-filing in a separate action.
7
II.
8
Motion to Modify
Defendants have filed a motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order and request
9
that the court vacate the current deadlines in light of the recently filed first amended complaint.
10
(ECF No. 38.) The motion will be granted and a new discovery and scheduling order will issue
11
once defendants have responded to the first amended complaint.
12
13
III.
Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant
The complaint states claims against defendants Acharya, Liu, Enriquez, Limpiado, and
14
Salud and they will be required to respond to the complaint. The claims against defendant Ladan
15
are not properly joined and it will be recommended that they be dismissed without prejudice to
16
filing a separate complaint against Ladan.
17
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
18
1.
19
2. Defendants’ request for screening of the first amended complaint (ECF No. 37) is
20
21
22
Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint (ECF No. 35) is granted.
granted.
3. Acharya, Liu, Enriquez, Limpiado, and Salud must respond to the first amended
complaint (ECF No. 36) within thirty days of service of this order.
23
4. Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 38) is
24
granted. The deadlines in the June 25, 2019 discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 34) are
25
vacated and will be re-set once defendants have responded to the first amended complaint.
26
27
28
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the claims against defendant Ladan be
dismissed without prejudice to being brought in a separate action.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
4
1
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days
2
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
3
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
4
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
5
objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
6
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
7
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
8
Dated: July 11, 2019
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
13:gome2407.1.ac.f&r
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?