(PS) Schmitz et al v. Asman et al

Filing 392

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 09/24/2024 ORDERING defendants Tebrock and Ponciano to SHOW CAUSE in writing, within 14 days, why they did not timely file an opposition or statement of non -opposition to 363 Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. It is further RECOMMENDED that 363 and 367 Motions for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings be denied. Referred to Judge Daniel J. Calabretta. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations. (Lopez, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

THOMAS SCHMITZ, et al.,

11

Plaintiffs,

12
13

ORDER AND

v.
ADAM ASMAN, et al.,

14

No. 2:20-cv-00195-DJC-CKD (PS)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

15
16
Plaintiffs Dianne Mallia and Thomas Schmitz proceed without counsel under 42 U.S.C. §

17
18

1983, individually and as successors of interest to the estate of their son, William Schmitz. This

19

matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In the motion presently before the court, plaintiff Mallia seeks partial judgment on the

20
21

pleadings against defendants Ceballos, Lizarraga, Kuich, Kernan, Diaz, Toche, Gipson, Tebrock,

22

Brizendine, Brockenborough, and Ponciano. (ECF No. 363, 367.) The court took this matter

23

under submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (ECF No. 375.) For the reasons set forth below,

24

plaintiff Mallia’s motion should be denied. However, within 14 days, defendants Tebrock and

25

Ponciano shall show cause in writing why they did not timely file a written opposition or

26

statement of non-opposition to the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

27

////

28

////
1

BACKGROUND

1
2

This action arises from the January 2019 death of William Schmitz (“William”) during his

3

incarceration at Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”) under the authority of the California

4

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). William died in his prison cell of a

5

methamphetamine overdose after ingesting large quantities of the substance on January 21, 2019.

6

Plaintiffs filed the operative fourth amended complaint (“4AC”) on February 23, 2022. (ECF No.

7

173.) Plaintiffs allege constitutionally inadequate medical and mental health treatment and/or

8

negligence by various defendants caused harm and injuries, including William’s death. (ECF No.

9

173.)

10

On August 22, 2022, defendants Lizarraga and Kuich filed their operative amended

11

answer to the 4AC. (ECF No. 210.) On April 17, 2023, defendants Brizendine, Brockenborough,

12

Ceballos, Diaz, Gipson, Kernan, Ponciano, Tebrock, Toche, and other defendants filed their

13

operative amended answer to the 4AC. (ECF No. 271.)
Plaintiff Mallia filed the motion for judgment on the pleadings presently before the court

14
15

on March 21, 2024. (ECF No. 363; see also ECF No. 367, Notice of Errata.) Plaintiff Mallia seeks

16

partial judgment on the pleadings against eleven defendants on plaintiff’s deliberate indifference

17

claims.

18

Plaintiff claims these defendants were deliberately indifferent to William’s serious

19

medical need to receive adequate mental health treatment by failing to provide competent mental

20

health staff in adequate numbers to identify and treat inmates who suffered from serious mental

21

disorders. (See ECF No. 367 at 25-26.) Plaintiff argues defendants admitted knowledge of their

22

responsibilities to correct deficiencies in policies and practices but failed to do so. (Id. at 2, 13-14-

23

21.) Plaintiff argues defendants knew that by failing to comply with court orders in Coleman v.

24

Newsom, No. 2:90-cv-0520-KJM-SCR (“Coleman”), they were exposing inmates including

25

William to constitutionally deficient care, including by not meeting minimal standards for the

26

frequency of psychiatric appointments. (Id. at 2, 13, 21.) Plaintiff argues the harm William

27

suffered is documented in his medical records. (Id. at 21-25.) Plaintiff argues none of the

28

affirmative defenses are viable against the deliberate indifference claims. (Id. at 3, 25.)
2

1

Plaintiff’s motion requests the court to take judicial notice of the Bench order findings and

2

Special Master’s reports in Coleman and the content of William’s medical records. (ECF No. 367

3

at 3-6.) Plaintiff argues William’s serious mental illness, and not just his death, was the harm and

4

that defendants’ deliberate indifference and causation are proved based on the failure to meet

5

objective standards set by CDCR’s Mental Health Services Delivery System Program Guide

6

(“Program Guide”) and findings in the Coleman case, along with William’s medical records and

7

the defendants’ admission of their knowledge and responsibilities. (ECF No. 373 at 3, 7-10.)

8

Defendants Brizendine, Brockenborough, Ceballos, Diaz, Gipson, Kernan, and Toche

9

opposed plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on April 4, 2024. (ECF No. 368.)

10

Defendants Kevin Kuich M.D. and Joe A. Lizarraga opposed the motion on April 4, 2024. (ECF

11

No. 370.)

12

Defendants argue the motion improperly asks the court to enter a judgment based on

13

plaintiff’s resolution of contested issues, including causation, knowledge, and whether they acted

14

with deliberate indifference toward William. (ECF No. 368 at 2-10; ECF No. 370 at 4-8.)

15

Defendants argue information from the Coleman case is irrelevant because the facts and

16

circumstances of William’s death were never before the court in Coleman. (ECF No. 368 at 4-5;

17

ECF No. 370 at 4.)

18

Defendants Brizendine, Brockenborough, Ceballos, Diaz, Gipson, Kernan, and Toche

19

additionally argue plaintiff fails to establish that William was not seen by psychiatrists in

20

accordance with the Program Guide. (ECF No. 368 at 6-8.) They argue that even if plaintiff had

21

established such a failure or omission, a jury could find he sustained no damage and/or that

22

defendants were not deliberately indifferent. (ECF No. 368 at 6-8.) These defendants also argue

23

expert testimony is required to establish the alleged fact of William’s suffering and any causal

24

chain. (Id. at 9.)

25

Defendants Lizarraga and Kuich separately assert plaintiff brought the instant motion in

26

bad faith. (ECF No. 370 at 2.) They ask the court to award them their reasonable attorney’s fees

27

and expenses incurred in defending the motion under the court’s inherent power to sanction. (Id.

28

at 8.) The opposition argument requesting such an award is a “request made to the Court for an
3

1

order or other judicial activity” and is therefore a “motion” under Local Rule 101. To the extent

2

defendants are requesting relief from the court, their motion does not comply with Local Rule 230

3

and is deficiently filed. The court declines to consider the request.

4

Plaintiff Mallia filed a reply. (ECF No. 373.) Defendants Brizendine, Brockenborough,

5

Ceballos, Diaz, Gipson, Kernan, and Toche objected to plaintiff’s submission of additional

6

evidence in reply. (ECF No. 374.)
LEGAL STANDARD

7
8
9

“After the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move
for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). A motion for judgment on the pleadings

10

“challenges the legal sufficiency of the opposing party’s pleadings[.]” Morgan v. County of Yolo,

11

436 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1154–55 (E.D. Cal. 2006), aff’d, 277 F. App’x 734 (9th Cir. 2008).

12

The same legal standard applicable to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion applies to a motion brought

13

under Rule 12(c). See Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989).

14

Judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when, taking all the allegations in the non-moving

15

party’s pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Marshall

16

Naify Revocable Trust v. United States, 672 F.3d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Fajardo v.

17

County of Los Angeles, 179 F.3d 698, 699 (9th Cir. 1999)); see also Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d

18

922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009) (“judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when there is no issue of

19

material fact in dispute, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law”). The

20

facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and all reasonable inferences

21

are drawn in favor of that party. See Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 431

22

F.3d 353, 360 (9th Cir. 2005). The court limits its review to the content of the pleadings and

23

matters properly subject to judicial notice. See Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Crest Grp., Inc., 499 F.3d

24

1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007).

25
26

DISCUSSION
To prove that a defendant violated William’s Eighth Amendment rights, plaintiff must

27

show the following: (1) an objectively serious medical need, (2) defendant was deliberately

28

indifferent to that need, and (3) defendant’s purposeful act (or failure to act) was the actual and
4

1

proximate cause of the claimed injuries. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994);

2

Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 & 1081 (9th Cir. 2013); Jett v.

3

Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). In the present motion, the parties dispute whether

4

plaintiff proved causation for harm suffered and deliberate indifference on the part of the

5

defendants.

6

Deliberate indifference is shown where a prison official “knows that inmates face a

7

substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to

8

abate it.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847. Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard under which

9

“the prison official must not only ‘be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that

10

a substantial risk of serious harm exists,’ but that person “must also draw the inference.” Toguchi

11

v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). The “inquiry

12

into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each

13

individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional

14

deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). “Causation is generally a

15

question of fact for the jury[.]” Lies v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 641 F.2d 765, 770 (9th Cir. 1981).

16

Plaintiff does not establish deliberate indifference on the part of any defendant and does not

17

establish causation.

18

Plaintiff argues William’s serious mental illness was the harm and defendants’ deliberate

19

indifference and causation is proved based on the failure to meet objective standards set by the

20

Program Guide, findings in the Coleman case, defendants’ admissions of knowledge of certain

21

matters, including their responsibilities, and William’s medical records. (ECF No. 373 at 3, 7-10.)

22

As defendants argue, however, their operative pleadings denied a substantial portion of plaintiff’s

23

allegations and denied wrongdoing. (See ECF Nos. 210, 271.) Taken as true, defendants’

24

pleadings create material issues of fact that prevent plaintiff from prevailing on the motion for

25

judgment on the pleadings.

26

Plaintiff’s argument for judgment on the pleadings as to the deliberate indifference claims

27

necessarily relies on material for the accuracy of matters recited therein of which the court cannot

28

take judicial notice, including documents filed in the Coleman case and plaintiff’s interpretation
5

1

of William’s medical records. (ECF No. 373 at 7-10.) Plaintiff argues the court should “heed” in

2

this case to the findings in Coleman which meet the requirements of deliberate indifference. (ECF

3

No. 367 at 4.) Specifically, plaintiff’s motion requests the court to take judicial notice of Bench

4

order findings in Coleman that defendants have violated and continue to violate the court’s

5

October 10, 2017, order as modified. (Id. at 3.) In addition, plaintiff’s motion requests the court to

6

take judicial notice of the information within “all of over 30 Coleman Special Master’s

7

monitoring reports,” including “the repeated findings of inadequate care of individual inmates,

8

including at MCSP.” (Id. at 6 & fn. 5.) Plaintiff argues “[t]he care was repeatedly found

9

inadequate based on many of the similar acts as occurred in William’s care and proven by the

10
11

contents of William’s medical records.” (Id.)
The docket and case files in a federal court case are matters of public record which are

12

capable of accurate and ready determination and thus are a proper subject of judicial notice. See

13

Rico v. Ducart, 980 F.3d 1292, 1295 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2020) (taking judicial notice of a report to

14

explain why officers at the Pelican Bay State Prison were conducting welfare checks in a manner

15

that allegedly deprived inmates of sleep). Here, though, plaintiff does not ask the court to take

16

judicial notice of the existence of the court orders or other docket items or their contents. Instead,

17

plaintiff asks the court to accept as true the contents and conclusions set forth therein.

18

Judicial notice does not extend to the veracity of factual findings in the docket items for

19

the Coleman case. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 690 (9th Cir. 2001) (“On a Rule

20

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, when a court takes judicial notice of another court’s opinion, it may

21

do so not for the truth of the facts recited therein, but for the existence of the opinion, which is not

22

subject to reasonable dispute over its authenticity.” (internal quotation marks and citation

23

omitted)); Robinson v. Brown, No. 18-CV-00121-BAS-RBB, 2018 WL 4951965, at *4 (S.D. Cal.

24

Oct. 12, 2018) (taking judicial notice of a Coleman court order “without accepting as true the

25

contents of the document”). The court declines to take judicial notice of any Coleman material for

26

the truth of the facts recited therein.

27

Plaintiff also requests the court to consider the contents of William’s medical records as if

28

they were attached to the 4AC. (ECF No. 367 at 4-5.) Even if the existence of the medical records
6

1

is appropriate for judicial notice, however, interpretation of the medical records is not. See Lee,

2

250 F.3d at 690; Sigler v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 532 F.3d 469, 476-77 (6th Cir. 2008) (declining

3

to take judicial notice of “medical notations” from a treating physician). Thus, the court declines

4

to take judicial notice of the contents of William’s medical records for the truth of any content

5

recited therein or inferences therefrom.

6

Plaintiff’s reply argument confirms the motion for partial judgment on the pleadings relies

7

on material of which the court cannot take judicial notice, including documents filed in the

8

Coleman case for the truth of the matter asserted and plaintiff’s interpretation of William’s

9

medical records. (ECF No. 373 at 7-10.) Based on the content of the pleadings and matters

10

properly subject to judicial notice, plaintiff fails to establish deliberate indifference on the part of

11

any defendants and causation for harm suffered.

12

CONCLUSION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATION

13

In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED THAT within fourteen (14) days of

14

service of this order, defendants Tebrock and Ponciano shall show cause in writing why they did

15

not timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to plaintiff Mallia’s March 21, 2024,

16

motion for partial judgment on the pleadings.
In addition, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff Mallia’s motion for partial judgment

17
18

on the pleadings (ECF Nos. 363, 367) be denied.

19

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

20

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within seven (7) days after service of the

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
7

1

objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

2

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir.

3

1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

4

Dated: September 24, 2024
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8

8-schmitz20cv195.jop

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8