Young v. Lee et al

Filing 58

ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/5/2020 ORDERING the Clerk to randomly assign this matter to a district court judge and DENYING as unnecessary defendants' 54 motion to strike portions o f plaintiff's second amended complaint. Service is appropriate for Ledesma, Lee, Martinez. The Clerk shall send plaintiff forms for service to be completed and returned within 30 days, along with the Notice of Submission. IT IS RECOMMENDED t hat defendant Williams' 55 motion to dismiss claim two of the second amended complaint be granted; plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against defendant Williams be dismissed without leave to amend; and defendant Williams be dismissed without leave to amend. Assigned and referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections to F&R due within 21 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONNIE G. YOUNG,

12
13
14

No. 2:17-cv-02596-CKD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER AND

LEE, et al.,

15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se in this federal civil rights action filed

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the court is plaintiff’s second amended

19

complaint along with defendants’ motion to strike and motion to dismiss portions of this

20

complaint. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to defendants’ motions. For the reasons

21

discussed below, the court finds service of the second amended complaint appropriate for

22

defendants Ledesma, Lee, and Martinez based on an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim

23

against plaintiff, alleged to have occurred on January 19, 2016. The court will strike defendants’

24

motion to strike as unnecessary in light of recommendation to dismiss defendant Williams with

25

prejudice and the court’s prior ruling.

26

I.

27

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

28

Screening Standard

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
1

1

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

2

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

3

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

4

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

5

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th

6

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

7

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

8

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

9

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

10

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

11

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than

12

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause

13

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words,

14

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

15

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim

16

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A

17

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw

18

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.

19

at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted,

20

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and

21

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416

22

U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

23

II.

Allegations in the Second Amended Complaint

24

At all times relevant to the allegations in the second amended complaint, plaintiff was an

25

inmate at the San Joaquin County Jail. ECF No. 53 at 1. Defendants are deputy sheriffs serving

26

as correctional officers at the county jail. ECF No. 53 at 2. Plaintiff alleges that on January 19,

27

2016, defendant Lee jerked him off of the toilet in his cell and beat him on the face, neck and

28

body. Id. at 3. Defendants Ledesma and Martinez then joined in the beating which lasted for
2

1

approximately two minutes. Id. Plaintiff was injured as a result of defendants’ actions. Id. He

2

was removed from his cell and placed in administrative segregation. Id. at 4. The next day,

3

plaintiff requested medical attention from defendant Williams who told plaintiff that he would

4

only get him medical treatment if he admitted to possessing contraband in his cell. Id. After

5

plaintiff denied having contraband, defendant Williams ignored his request for medical treatment

6

for his injuries and ongoing pain. Id. Plaintiff further contends that he did not receive medical

7

attention until January 22, 2016 at approximately 5:00 p.m. after he reported having a seizure. Id.

8
9
10

By way of relief, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. ECF No. 53 at 6.
Plaintiff also requests that all future hearing-impaired inmates at the San Joaquin County Jail be
provided with vests to wear that identify their disability. Id.
Defendants’ Motion to Strike

11

III.

12

On July 13, 2020, defendants filed their second motion to strike in this matter.

13

Defendants request that two sentences in the second amended complaint be stricken as redundant,

14

immaterial, or impertinent pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF

15

No. 54. The specific portions of the complaint include a statement that: 1) plaintiff’s request for

16

medical treatment was denied in his claim for excessive force; and, 2) plaintiff’s request that all

17

future hearing-impaired inmates be provided with a vest that identifies their disability. ECF No.

18

54 at 2. Defendants point out that the court granted the prior motion to strike the portion of claim

19

one that states that plaintiff’s request for medical treatment was denied. See ECF No. 50 at 8

20

(order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to strike). With respect to

21

plaintiff’s requested remedy of providing hearing-impaired inmates with vests, defendants assert

22

that plaintiff does not have standing to seek this relief at a jail where he is no longer an inmate.

23

ECF No. 54 at 6.

24

IV.

25

In a concurrently filed motion to dismiss, defendant Williams contends that claim two of

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

26

the second amended complaint should be dismissed for failing to state an Eighth Amendment

27

deliberate indifference claim. ECF No. 55 at 2. Defendant Williams points out that the exhibits

28

attached to plaintiff’s first amended complaint contradict his current allegations. Id. at 4.
3

1

Specifically, defendant asserts that plaintiff was provided medical treatment 3½ hours after he

2

alleges that defendant Williams ignored his request for assistance. ECF No. 55 at 4. Defendant

3

further contends that a single, isolated incident of the denial of medical care, as plaintiff alleges in

4

his second amended complaint, is not sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate

5

indifference claim. Id. at 7-9. Defendant Williams requests that the court deny plaintiff leave to

6

amend his complaint because he has already had three chances to plead a valid claim for relief.

7
8

V.

Legal Standards
A. Motion to Strike Pursuant to Rule 12(f)

9

Under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may strike from a

10

complaint “an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous

11

matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “[T]he function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the

12

expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues….” Sidney–

13

Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). However, motions to strike are

14

generally disfavored and “should not be granted unless it is clear that the matter to be stricken

15

could have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation.” Neveu v. City of Fresno,

16

392 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1170 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also

17

Neilson v. Union Bank of Cal., N.A., 290 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1152 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (“Motions to

18

strike are generally regarded with disfavor because of the limited importance of pleading in

19

federal practice, and because they are often used as a delaying tactic”). Whether to grant a

20

motion to strike is within the sound discretion of the court, but the court must view the pleading

21

in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and resolve any doubt as to the relevance of the

22

challenged allegations in favor of the non-moving party. See In re 2TheMart.com, Inc. v. Sec.

23

Litig., 114 F. Supp. 2d 955, 965 (C.D. Cal. 2000).

24

B. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)

25

In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a

26

complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action”; it

27

must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”

28

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). “The pleading must contain something
4

1

more...than...a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of

2

action.” Id., quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-

3

236 (3d ed. 2004). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to

4

‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

5

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads

6

factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable

7

for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

8
9

The court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg.
Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most

10

favorable to the party opposing the motion, and resolve all doubts in the pleader’s favor when

11

resolving a motion to dismiss. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). The court will

12

“‘presume that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the

13

claim.’” National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 256 (1994), quoting

14

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). Moreover, pro se pleadings are held to

15

a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520

16

(1972). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court may consider facts established by exhibits

17

attached to the complaint. Durning v. First Boston Corp., 815 F.2d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir. 1987).

18
19

C. Deliberate Indifference to a Serious Medical Need
To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on lack of medical treatment, an inmate

20

must show “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,

21

104 (1976). In the Ninth Circuit, the test for deliberate indifference consists of two parts.

22

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs.,

23

Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997). First, the plaintiff must show a “serious medical

24

need” by demonstrating that “failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further

25

significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’” Id. at 1059 (citing Estelle,

26

429 U.S. at 104). Second, the plaintiff must show the defendant’s response to the need was

27

deliberately indifferent. McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060. This second prong – deliberate

28

indifference – may be shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or
5

1

possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091,

2

1096 (9th Cir. 2006). “Indifference may appear when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally

3

interfere with medical treatment.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).

4

VI.

Analysis

5

A. Motion to Dismiss

6

Defendant Williams’ prior motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment deliberate

7

indifference claim stemming from events on January 19, 2016 was granted because “[t]he

8

medical records attached to the [first amended] complaint indicate that plaintiff was assessed by

9

medical staff within 15 minutes of the use of force.” ECF No. 50 at 7. However, plaintiff was

10

granted leave to amend because “the additional medical records attached to the FAC demonstrate

11

that plaintiff had ongoing complaints of rib pain which may support a deliberate indifference

12

claim on a different date.” ECF No. 50 at 7.

13

The current allegations of defendant Williams’ deliberate indifference concern events on

14

January 20, 2016. ECF No. 53 at 4. As correctly pointed out in the motion to dismiss, plaintiff

15

was seen by Correctional Health Care Services twice on January 20, 2016. ECF No. 11 at 23. He

16

was first seen at 9:52 a.m. and then at 1955, or 7:55 p.m. Id. While there are no notes concerning

17

plaintiff’s first medical visit, the results of the second visit document plaintiff’s blood pressure

18

and pulse. Id. Plaintiff was next seen by a doctor on January 22, 2016 when a chest x-ray was

19

ordered. ECF No. 11 at 28.

20

In order to demonstrate that defendant Williams was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s

21

serious medical need, plaintiff must show “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a

22

prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Jett v. Penner,

23

439 F.3d 091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). While the medical records from January 20, 2016 are not

24

attached to the second amended complaint, plaintiff did attach them to his first amended

25

complaint. See ECF No. 11 at 10-32. The court considered these medical records when resolving

26

the prior motion to dismiss and has reviewed them again for purposes of resolving the pending

27

motion. See Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1209 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding that the district court

28

could have considered exhibits that had been attached to the original complaint in ruling on
6

1

defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint) (citation omitted). In light of the

2

medical records, the undersigned concludes that the allegations are not sufficient to state an

3

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against defendant Williams. While defendant

4

Williams left plaintiff in his cell at 4:30 on January 20, 2016, plaintiff was seen by medical staff

5

3½ hours later based on the medical records. This does not establish a purposeful failure to

6

respond to plaintiff’s medical needs by defendant Williams. See Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096.

7

Accordingly, the undersigned recommends granting defendant Williams’ motion to dismiss the

8

deliberate indifference claim in the second amended complaint.

9

In light of the fact that plaintiff has previously been granted leave to amend on two

10

separate occasions, it does not appear that these deficiencies could be cured by alleging

11

additional facts. See Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d 242,

12

247 (9th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the undersigned recommends denying

13

further leave to amend the deliberate indifference claim alleged in the second amended complaint.

14

B. Motion to Strike

15

Regarding the pending motion to strike portions of the second amended complaint, the

16

court denies the motion as unnecessary in light of recommendation to dismiss defendant Williams

17

with prejudice and the court’s prior ruling.

18

VII.

19

The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not

20
21

Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party

intended as legal advice.
The court has reviewed the allegations in your second amended complaint and finds that

22

service is appropriate for defendants Ledesma, Lee, and Martinez only. The undersigned is

23

recommending that defendant Williams’ motion to dismiss be granted and that he be removed

24

from this case permanently. If you do not agree with this recommended outcome as to defendant

25

Williams, you have 21 days to explain why it is not correct. Label your explanation “Objections

26

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”

27

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

28

1. The Clerk of Court randomly assign this matter to a district court judge.
7

1

2. Defendants’ motion to strike portions of plaintiff’s second amended complaint (ECF

2

No. 54) is denied as unnecessary in light of recommendation to dismiss defendant

3

Williams with prejudice and the court’s prior ruling.

4
5
6
7
8
9

3. Service is appropriate for defendant Ledesma, Lee, and Martinez based on an Eighth
Amendment claim of excessive force against plaintiff.
4. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff three USM-285 forms, one summons, an
instruction sheet and a copy of the second amended complaint.
5. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached
Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

10

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

11

b. One completed summons;

12

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 3 above;

13
14
15

and,
d. Four copies of the complaint.
6. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

16

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the

17

United States Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule

18

of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs.

19

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that:

20

1. Defendant Williams’ motion to dismiss claim two of the second amended complaint

21
22
23

(ECF No. 55) be granted.
2. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against defendant
Williams be dismissed without leave to amend.

24

3. Defendant Williams be dismissed from this case with prejudice.

25

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

26

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days

27

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

28

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
8

1

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

2

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

3

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

4

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

5

Dated: October 5, 2020

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

12/youn2596.mtd+m2strike.docx

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

RONNIE G. YOUNG,

No. 2:17-cv-02596-CKD

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

15

LEE, et al.,

OF DOCUMENTS

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order filed
_____________________:

20

____

completed summons form

21

____

completed USM-285 forms

22

____

copies of the __6/29/20_______________
Second Amended Complaint

23
24

DATED:

25
26
____________________
Plaintiff

27
28
10