Ceragioli, et al., v. Butte County et al
Filing
31
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/25/2024 GRANTING 6 and 23 Motions to Dismiss, and DENYING all other motions as Moot. Any Amended Complaint shall be filed within 30 days of the date of service of this order, and defendants shall file a response no later than 21 days from the filing. (Woodson, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DARIO CERAGIOLI, et al.,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
14
No. 2:23-cv-01113-TLN-DMC
ORDER
v.
BUTTE COUNTY, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Butte County Sheriff Korey L. Honea, in
18
19
20
his individual and official capacities (“Sheriff Honea”); Butte County Deputy Sheriffs Joseph
George (“Deputy George”) and Casey O’Hern (“Deputy O’Hern”), in their individual and official
capacities; and Butte County’s (collectively, “County Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No.
21
6.) Also before the Court is Defendants Wellpath, LLC; Wellpath Management, Inc.; Crystal
22
23
Comer (“Comer”); Tanya Atkinson (“Atkinson”); and Pamela Johansen’s (“Johansen”)
(collectively, “Wellpath Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 23.) Both motions have
24
been fully briefed.
25
For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS County Defendants’ Motion to
26
Dismiss (ECF No. 6) and GRANTS Wellpath Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23).
27
///
28
1
1
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
2
This case concerns the death of a pre-trial detainee, Dario Ceragioli (“Ceragioli”). County
3
Defendants include Butte County and its Sheriff and Deputy Sheriffs. (ECF No. 1 at 9–10.)
4
Wellpath Defendants are individuals — Atkinson, Comer, and Johansen — and corporate entities
5
who contracted with Butte County to provide medical and mental health services in its jails. (Id.
6
at 9–11.) Plaintiffs Dario Ceragioli, by and through Elizabeth Ceragioli as successor in interest,
7
Elizabeth Ceragioli, Mary Ceragioli, Anthony Ceragioli, and Joshua Ceragioli (collectively,
8
“Plaintiffs”) allege Ceragioli was a 62-year-old man who lived in Butte County and suffered from
9
multiple sclerosis and deteriorating mental health. (Id. at 2.)
10
On June 7, 2022, Deputy George and other deputies responded to a call that Ceragioli was
11
exhibiting erratic and violent behavior, including forcing himself into his neighbor’s home and
12
physically assaulting her, running around the neighborhood naked, charging at trucks and
13
attempting to strike their drivers, and speaking in an incoherent fashion. (Id. at 2 n. 2.) Deputy
14
George obtained an arrest warrant for Ceragioli and took him to the Butte County Jail where
15
Wellpath Defendants monitored him for twenty-four hours to determine whether he was under the
16
influence of alcohol or drugs. (Id. at 2, 4–6, 9–11.) Plaintiffs allege Ceragioli presented with
17
florid psychosis but Comer and Atkinson failed to run tests to determine its cause or otherwise
18
consult with a psychiatrist or refer Ceragioli to a medical facility. (Id. at 3.) Comer noted
19
Ceragioli “cleared sobering” after 24 hours of monitoring and Johansen noted the state of
20
Ceragioli’s mental condition and hygiene, but Plaintiffs allege there was no substantive
21
interaction with medical staff until Ceragioli was found motionless in his cell days later, suffering
22
from sepsis and organ failure. (Id. at 3–4.)
23
On June 16, 2022, Ceragioli was pronounced dead. (Id. at 3.) According to Plaintiffs,
24
earlier and more substantive medical treatment by Wellpath Defendants to address Ceragioli’s
25
psychosis would have saved his life. (Id.)
26
On June 12, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against County Defendants and Wellpath
27
Defendants (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging: (1) Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
28
violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”); (2) Fourteenth Amendment supervisory liability
2
1
under § 1983; (3) violations of Cal. Gov’t Code § 845.6; and (4) wrongful death under California
2
law. (ECF No. 1.)
3
Defendants filed the instant motions to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
4
(“Rule” or “Rules”) 8(a)(2) and 41(b), or in the alternative, 12(b)(6), Plaintiffs filed oppositions,
5
and Defendants filed replies. (ECF Nos. 6, 11–12, 23, 27, 30.)
6
II.
STANDARD OF LAW
7
Rule 8(a) requires that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
8
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79
9
(2009). Under notice pleading in federal court, the complaint must “give the defendant fair notice
10
of what the claim ... is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
11
544, 555 (2007) (internal quotations omitted). “This simplified notice pleading standard relies on
12
liberal discovery rules and summary judgment motions to define disputed facts and issues and to
13
dispose of unmeritorious claims.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002).
14
“If [a] plaintiff fails … to comply with [Rule 8], a defendant may move to dismiss the
15
action or any claim against it.” Rule 41(b). On a motion to dismiss, however, the factual
16
allegations in the complaint must be accepted as true. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972). A
17
court must give the plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn from the “well-
18
pleaded” allegations of the complaint. Retail Clerks Int'l Ass'n v. Schermerhorn, 373 U.S. 746,
19
753 n.6 (1963). A plaintiff need not allege “‘specific facts’ beyond those necessary to state his
20
claim and the grounds showing entitlement to relief.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 (internal citation
21
omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
22
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
23
alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
24
Nevertheless, a court “need not assume the truth of legal conclusions cast in the form of
25
factual allegations.” United States ex rel. Chunie v. Ringrose, 788 F.2d 638, 643 n.2 (9th Cir.
26
1986). While Rule 8(a) does not require detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an
27
unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A
28
pleading is insufficient if it offers mere “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the
3
1
elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
2
678 (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
3
statements, do not suffice.”). Moreover, it is inappropriate to assume the plaintiff “can prove
4
facts that it has not alleged or that the defendants have violated the...laws in ways that have not
5
been alleged.” Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459
6
U.S. 519, 526 (1983).
Ultimately, a court may not dismiss a complaint in which the plaintiff has alleged “enough
7
8
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
9
697 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Only where a plaintiff fails to “‘nudge[ ] [their] claims
10
... across the line from conceivable to plausible’” is the complaint properly dismissed. Id. at 680
11
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While the plausibility requirement is not akin to a
12
probability requirement, it demands more than “a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
13
unlawfully.” Id. at 678. This plausibility inquiry is “a context-specific task that requires the
14
reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679.
If a complaint fails to state a plausible claim, “‘[a] district court should grant leave to
15
16
amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading
17
could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.’” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
18
1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 484, 497 (9th Cir. 1995));
19
see also Gardner v. Marino, 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding no abuse of discretion in
20
denying leave to amend when amendment would be futile). Although a district court should
21
freely give leave to amend when justice so requires under Rule 15(a)(2), “the court's discretion to
22
deny such leave is ‘particularly broad’ where the plaintiff has previously amended its
23
complaint[.]” Ecological Rights Found. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 713 F.3d 502, 520 (9th Cir.
24
2013) (quoting Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir. 2004)).
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
4
1
III.
ANALYSIS
2
The thrust of Defendants’ motions to dismiss is that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with
3
Rule 8(a)(2) and therefore the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety pursuant to Rule
4
41(b). (ECF No. 6-1 at 9–12; ECF No. 23 at 5–8.) As will be discussed, the Court agrees with
5
Defendants and finds the factual basis for each Defendants’ liability for each claim is unclear.1
Rule 8 requires “each averment of a pleading to be ‘simple, concise, and direct.’”
6
7
McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996). To comply with Rule 8, a complaint
8
should clearly and fully set forth “who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with
9
enough detail to guide discovery.” Id. at 1178. Even if the factual elements of a cause of action
10
are present but are scattered throughout the complaint and not organized into a “short and plain
11
statement of the claim,” dismissal for failure to satisfy Rule 8 is proper. Id. “The propriety of
12
dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 does not depend on whether the complaint is wholly
13
without merit.” Id. at 1179. Indeed, Rule 8(d)’s requirement that each averment of a pleading be
14
“‘simple, concise, and direct,’ applies to good claims as well as bad, and is a basis for dismissal
15
independent of Rule 12(b)(6).” Id.
“Shotgun pleading occurs when one party pleads that multiple parties did an act, without
16
17
identifying which party did what specifically; or when one party pleads multiple claims, and does
18
not identify which specific facts are allocated to which claim.” Hughey v. Camacho, No. 2:13-
19
CV-2665-TLN-AC, 2014 WL 5473184, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2014) (first citing In re
20
Mortgages Ltd., No. 2:08-BK-07465-RJH, 2013 WL 1336830, at *12 (Bankr. D. Ariz. Mar. 29,
21
2013); and then citing Magulta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001)). In the instant
22
case, the Complaint does both and thus violates Rule 8(a)(2). Id. Plaintiffs’ Complaint includes
23
fourteen pages of factual allegations that describe a wide variety of conduct by different
24
individuals employed by different entities. (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 1–21, 24–47, 49–51.) Importantly,
25
the Complaint does not even include a factual allegations section and instead contains an
26
27
28
Because the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 8(a)(2) and 41(b), the Court declines to address Defendants’ alternative arguments
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
5
1
1
introduction, rife with legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations. (Id. at ¶¶ 1–21.)
2
These “allegations” are later incorporated by reference within the four causes of action that are
3
asserted against Defendants without any designation of which facts support each claim for each of
4
the Defendants. This lack of clarity permeates the Complaint and is a sufficient basis for
5
dismissal. Quintanar v. Cnty. of Stanislaus, No. 118CV01403TLNBAM, 2021 WL 4443251, at
6
*3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2021) (citing Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2011)). The
7
Court will address certain arguments from Defendants’ motions to dismiss to further illustrate the
8
issue.
9
10
A.
County Defendants
County Defendants correctly argue Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to “clearly allege facts
11
stating a claim for relief against each Defendant, leaving County Defendants guessing as to which
12
claims are levied against each of them and upon which facts and legal theories Plaintiffs base
13
their claims.” (ECF No. 6-1 at 11.) For example, Plaintiffs’ first cause of action is a § 1983
14
claim against Defendants premised on purported violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth
15
Amendments. (ECF No. 1 at 14–16.) According to the Complaint, however, County Defendants
16
and Wellpath Defendants had completely distinct alleged interactions with Ceragioli — Deputy
17
George was allegedly responsible for Ceragioli’s arrest and Wellpath Defendants and Butte
18
County were allegedly responsible for his medical care in the jail cells. (Id.) But Plaintiffs’
19
Complaint is devoid of any factual allegations concerning Deputy George after Ceragioli’s arrest
20
and therefore it is unclear how he may be liable for Ceragioli’s purported unconstitutional
21
medical treatment. The Complaint merely refers to Defendants collectively and does not clearly
22
identify the theories on which County Defendants’ liability allegedly rests or the specific facts to
23
support them. Plaintiffs’ other causes of action suffer from the same deficiencies. (See ECF No.
24
1 at 17–21.) Thus, County Defendants have not been given sufficient notice of the claims levied
25
against them. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (complaint must give defendant fair notice of what the
26
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests); Quintanar, 2021 WL 4443251, at *4.
27
28
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES with leave to amend Plaintiffs’ Complaint as to
County Defendants.
6
1
B.
Wellpath Defendants
Like County Defendants, Wellpath Defendants correctly argue Plaintiffs’ causes of action
2
3
are comprised of impermissible shotgun allegations.2 (ECF No. 23-1 at 5–8.) As noted above,
4
Plaintiffs’ first cause of action includes conclusory allegations that Defendants violated
5
Ceragioli’s constitutional rights but does not specify what conduct by which party led to the
6
violations complained of. For example, a portion of Plaintiffs’ first cause of action is dedicated to
7
Ceragioli’s purported unlawful criminal detention. (ECF No. 1 at 15.) But again, Plaintiffs fail to
8
provide any facts to support an inference that Wellpath Defendants contributed to this ostensible
9
violation. The only allegations the Court finds regarding Wellpath Defendants are that Comer
10
and Atkinson “did not run any tests to determine whether there was a medical cause for
11
[Ceragioli’s] psychosis,” and the allegations related to Johansen’s notes about Ceragioli’s
12
hygienic and mental states. (Id. at 3–4.) Despite these meager factual allegations, Plaintiffs refer
13
to the parties collectively in each claim and fail to cite any specific factual allegations showing
14
how each party is alleged to have violated their rights or Ceragioli’s. Thus, Wellpath Defendants
15
have not been given sufficient notice of the claims levied against them. Twombly, 550 U.S. at
16
555 (complaint must give defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it
17
rests); Quintanar, 2021 WL 4443251, at *4.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES with leave to amend Plaintiffs’ Complaint as to
18
19
Wellpath Defendants.
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
The Court notes Wellpath Defendants’ motion to dismiss on Rules 8 and 41 grounds does
not specifically address Plaintiffs’ third cause of action. Nevertheless, Wellpath Defendants have
made clear they believe “all causes of action are subject to dismissal pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 8, 12(b)(6) and/or 41(b).” (ECF No. 23-1 at 2.) Moreover, Plaintiffs do not
oppose the dismissal of their third cause of action as to Wellpath Defendants. (ECF No. 27 at 4.)
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Wellpath Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to all causes of
action.
7
2
25
26
27
28
1
VI.
2
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss pursuant
3
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 41(b). (ECF Nos. 6, 23.) The Court DENIES as
4
moot all other motions. Any amended complaint shall be filed and served not later than thirty
5
(30) days from the electronic filing date of this Order. Defendants shall file any responsive
6
pleading not later than twenty-one (21) days from the filing and service of any amended
7
complaint.
8
9
CONCLUSION
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 25, 2024
10
11
12
13
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
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?