Smith v. Mack et al

Filing 43

Order denying 39 Motion to Dismiss entered by Hon. Vince Chhabria.

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALONZO SMITH,

Case No. 13-cv-00246-VC

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS

9
10

RICHARD MACK, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 39

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff Alonzo Smith claims in his second amended complaint ("SAC") that the

14

defendants, medical staff at the prison where Smith is incarcerated, were deliberately indifferent to

15

the severe pain he experienced when he was denied the "soft chopped diet" ordered by his doctor

16

in the wake of treatment for a broken jaw. The defendants move to dismiss the SAC, arguing

17

primarily that it fails to state a claim because even though they were responsible for Smith’s care,

18

they were powerless to prevent other prison staff (in particular, kitchen staff) from denying Smith

19

the soft chopped diet. But the SAC does not merely allege the defendants were powerless to

20

prevent Smith’s severe pain; it alleges they were unwilling to make any effort to remedy the

21

problem, despite being aware of it and despite being responsible for Smith’s care. As the Ninth

22

Circuit explained in a case with facts somewhat similar to those alleged here, awareness by prison

23

medical personnel of a broken jaw causing severe pain, combined with an unwillingness to ensure

24

the prisoner receives a diet designed to minimize that pain, gives rise to an Eighth Amendment

25

claim. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2000).

26

The defendants' remaining arguments for dismissal lack merit as well. Although they

27

argue that Ellis cannot be sued merely for denying Smith's administrative grievance, the SAC

28

alleges more: namely, that Ellis is the Medical CEO of the facility and that he refused to order a

1

soft chopped diet despite being aware of Smith's severe pain, and despite being ultimately

2

responsible for Smith's care. The defendants' also argue they are entitled to qualified immunity,

3

but at the pleading stage, taking the allegations as true and construing them liberally, qualified

4

immunity does not apply for the same reason that the SAC states a claim in the first place.

5

For these reasons, the motion to dismiss is denied. The parties are ordered to appear at a case

6

management conference on June 27, 2014 at 10:30 a.m.

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 13, 2014
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2