Ayala v. Ayers et al

Filing 83

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 80 First Motion to Appear by Telephone and DENYING 75 Amended Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on October 2, 2012. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
REYNALDO AYALA,

10

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

12

No. C 10-00979 JSW

v.
ROBERT AYERS, JR, ET AL.,

13

ORDER DENYING EDMONDS’
MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants.
/

14
15

Now before the Court is the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Jeffrey Edmonds,

16

LVN (“Edmonds”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a

17

claim upon which relief can be granted and as time-barred under the statute of limitations.1 The

18

Court finds that this matter is appropriate for disposition without oral argument and it is hereby

19

deemed submitted. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing set for December 14, 2012

20

is HEREBY VACATED.2 Having carefully reviewed the parties’ papers, considered their

21

arguments and the relevant legal authority, the Court hereby DENIES Edmonds’ motion to

22

dismiss.
BACKGROUND

23
24

Plaintiff Reynaldo Ayala, a state prisoner housed at San Quentin State Prison, filed a

25

claim alleging a single cause of action for deliberate indifference to serious medical need, in

26

violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, against Edmonds, a nurse at the prison’s Adjustment

27
It appears from Defendant Edmonds’ reply that he has correctly abandoned the
argument which has been already rejected by the Court that Plaintiff’s claims are timebarred. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1(a).
1

28

2

As the hearing on the motion is vacated, the motion to appear by telephone is moot.

1

Center. In his second amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, after he was beaten by co-

2

defendant Correctional Officers, Nurse Edmonds, without performing a medical examination

3

but instead examining him from several feet away through a transparent wall of a holding cage,

4

declared Plaintiff medically cleared. (Second Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 20, 21, 38-40.) Plaintiff

5

alleges that he was visibly bleeding from the head and was bruised. (Id. at ¶ 20.) Plaintiff

6

alleges that he reported that his face and ribs hurt, that his head ached, and that he felt dazed

7

and disoriented. (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges that Edmonds cleared him medically “at the

8

behest of and with the encouragement of” his co-defendant Officers, “who were aware that

9

Plaintiff was in need of medical treatment.” (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges that he was not
referred to a doctor or other medical professional for treatment of his injuries. (Id.) Lastly,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff alleges that Edmonds “acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical

12

needs by a doctor despite observing Plaintiff’s visible head wounds, and despite Plaintiff’s

13

statement that he felt dazed and was suffering from pain in his head, face, and ribs.” (Id. at ¶

14

40.) After Plaintiff continued to experience pain from the alleged assaults, he was finally

15

permitted to see the Adjustment Center unit doctor over a week after Plaintiff initially sustained

16

his injuries. The doctor prescribed Norco for Plaintiff’s continued pain. (Id. at ¶ 24.)

17

Edmonds moves to dismiss the single claim against him pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

18

for deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical need in violation of the Eighth

19

Amendment.

20
21

ANALYSIS
A.

Standard on Motion to Dismiss.

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal upon the plaintiff’s “failure

23

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The complaint is

24

construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and all material allegations in the

25

complaint are taken to be true. Sanders v. Kennedy, 794 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1986). A

26

district court should grant a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff has not plead “enough facts to

27

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

28

570 (2007). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need
2

1

detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of entitlement relief

2

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause

3

of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal quotation marks and citations

4

omitted). “Conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a

5

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” In re Syntex Corp. Sec. Litig., 95 F.3d 922, 926

6

(9th Cir. 1996). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the

7

speculative level ...” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (citations omitted). In addition, the pleading

8

must not merely allege conduct that is conceivable, but it must also be plausible. Id. at 570.

9

B.

Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Need.
Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976);

12

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX

13

Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A serious medical

14

need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury

15

or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id. (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). A

16

prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of

17

serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Farmer v.

18

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). In order for deliberate indifference to be established, there

19

must be a purposeful act or failure to act on the part of the defendant and resulting harm. See

20

McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060. Neither a finding that a defendant’s actions are egregious nor that

21

they resulted in significant injury to a prisoner is required to establish a violation of the

22

prisoner’s federal constitutional rights. Id. at 1060, 1061 (citing Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S.

23

1, 7-10 (1992)). Deliberate indifference may be shown where access to medical staff is

24

meaningless as the staff is not competent and does not render competent care. See Lolli v.

25

County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 420-21 (9th Cir. 2003).

26

In this case, at this procedural posture and viewed in the light most favorable to

27

Plaintiff, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to give fair notice of his claim against Edmonds

28

for deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Plaintiff alleges facts indicating that he
3

1

suffered injuries creating an inference of serious medical condition that could result in further

2

significant injury and sufficient facts indicating the defendant’s response manifested deliberate

3

indifference to the need. See, e.g., Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2006); see

4

also Hunt v. Dental Department, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir. 1989).

5
6

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant Edmonds’ motion to dismiss.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 2, 2012
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4