Webb v. Schwarzenegger

Filing 15

DISMISSAL ORDER. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 1/19/12. (pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

DENNIS DUANE WEBB,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

No. C 07-2294 PJH

Plaintiff,
vs.

DISMISSAL ORDER

A. SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor;
MICHAEL GENEST, Director,
Department of Finance; CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AND REHABILITATION; JAMES E.
TILTON, Acting Secretary, California
Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation; PETER FARBERSZEKRENYI, M.D., Director, Division of
Correctional Health Care Services;
ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., Acting
Warden, San Quentin State Prison;
KAREN SAYLOR, M.D., Chief Medical
Officer, San Quentin State Prison; DR.
WILSON, M.D.; JOEL LOPIN, M.D; C,
DAVID, M.D., WILLIAM WILLIAMS,
M.D., C.F. STONE, D.D.S.; AND DOES
1-18, medical assistants and
correctional officers,

22
Defendants.
23

/

24
This is a civil rights case brought by plaintiff Dennis Webb (“Webb”), a prisoner at
25
San Quentin State Prison. On February 6, 2007, Webb filed a complaint in the Marin
26
County Superior Court alleging three claims for equitable and injunctive relief, two under 42
27
U.S.C. § 1983 and one under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504
28
of the Rehabilitation Act. On April 7, 2007, all served defendants filed a notice of removal,

1

and the case was assigned to the Honorable Jeremy Fogel.1 On May 8, 2007, Judge Fogel

2

granted defendants’ motion requesting the court screen Webb’s complaint under 28 U.S.C.

3

§ 1915A, and set a briefing schedule on defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The

4

motion was fully briefed on May 29, 2007, and remained fully briefed and submitted at the

5

time of reassignment to the undersigned judge on September 27, 2011.

6
7

DISCUSSION
A.

8
9

Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

12

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at

13

1915A(b)(1),(2).

14

B.

Plaintiff’s Claims

15

Webb alleges three claims for relief. Webb’s first and third claims are brought under

16

§ 1983, and in both claims, he asserts that the defendants named in conjunction with those

17

claims were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the cruel and

18

unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In

19

his second claim, brought under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, Webb asserts that he is a

20

qualified individual under both acts, and that as a result of the defendants’ policies and

21

practices resulting in inadequate medical care, he has been excluded from recreation and

22

yard time, meals, visiting, discipline, telephone, emergency procedures, and other

23

programs and services provided by defendants to which he is otherwise qualified.

24

In support of all three claims, Webb states that defendants failed to timely provide

25

the prescribed diet and medications necessitated by his various medical conditions, and

26
1

27
28

In its April 27, 2007 notice of removal, the California Attorney’s General’s Office, which
represents defendants, notes that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(“CDCR”) and Dr. Wilson had not been served, and therefore, that no appearance was made
on their behalf.
2

1

also failed to provide timely and adequate medical treatment, including dental care. Webb

2

seeks only equitable and injunctive relief with respect to all three claims.

3

Meanwhile, Webb is a class member in three class actions pending before this court,

4

including Plata v. Schwarzenegger, No. C 01-01351 TEH (N.D. Cal. filed 2001), Armstrong

5

v. Brown, No. C 94-2307 CW (N.D. Cal. filed 1994), and Perez v. Cate, No. C 05-5241

6

JSW (N.D. Cal. filed 2005).2 The three class actions involve the same subject matter,

7

adequacy of medical and dental care, as Webb’s claims here.

8
9

The class in Plata includes all current and future California inmates requiring medical
care under the medical care system operated by the CDCR. Plaintiffs claimed that the
CDCR is providing constitutionally deficient medical care in violation of the Eighth

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Amendment, and that the current systems and resources cannot properly care for and treat

12

the prisoners in custody. They sought injunctive relief compelling defendants to

13

immediately furnish them with constitutionally adequate medical care. The State of

14

California stipulated to a remedial injunction, with which it failed to comply.

15

A three-judge court was convened,3 which issued a remedial order requiring the

16

State to reduce the prison population to 137.5% of the prisons’ design capacity within two

17

years, which, absent compliance through other means, would involve releasing some

18

prisoners before their full sentences have been served. See Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct.

19

1910, 1928 (2011). The State appealed the order of the three-judge court and the

20

Supreme Court affirmed the remedial order, directing the State to implement the order

21

“without further delay.” Id. at 1947.

22

Similarly, the class in Perez includes current and future California inmates housed at

23

one of California’s thirty-three state prisons. See Perez v. Cate, 632 F.3d 553, 554 (9th Cir.

24
2

25
26
27
28

At the time defendants filed their reply brief on May 29, 2007, Webb was also a
member of fourth pending class action, Lancaster v. Tilton, No. C 79-1630 WHA (N.D. Cal.
filed 1979). However, on April 14, 2009, the assigned judge entered an order terminating the
consent decree and the case.
3

The three-judge court consolidated Plata with another federal class action, Coleman
v. Wilson, 912 F. Supp. 1282 (E.D. Cal. 1995), which involved a class of prisoner-plaintiffs with
serious mental disorders.
3

1

2011). Plaintiffs claimed that the provision of dental care in California prisons violated the

2

Eighth Amendment. The parties settled the action and entered into a remedial plan which

3

provided, among other things, that plaintiffs would monitor the prison officials’

4

implementation of the plan. Id. at 554.

5

Finally, the class in Armstrong includes all present and future California state

6

prisoners and parolees under the care of the CDCR who are qualified individuals under the

7

ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and who have been denied access to

8

programs, services, and activities run by the CDCR and have been confined in or use

9

facilities operated by and under the control of the CDCR. Plaintiffs’ ADA and Rehabilitation
Act claims concern the accessibility of qualified prisoners to buildings, facilities and

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

programs, including educational, vocational, work furlough and work credit, recreational,

12

visiting, classification, disciplinary and emergency programs.

13

In their motion before this court, defendants contend that dismissal is required given

14

Webb’s membership in the above class actions. Webb opposes the motion, arguing that

15

his individual claims are not being litigated within the boundaries of the class action lawsuits

16

and that the relief that he seeks is different. His primary argument is that he seeks

17

individual relief as opposed to the systemic relief sought in the other class actions.

18

Having reviewed Webb’s complaint and the documents submitted by defendants in

19

conjunction with their request for judicial notice, the court concludes that Webb’s current

20

complaint seeking equitable and injunctive relief involves the very same events and same

21

claims being litigated in the above class actions. Individual suits for injunctive and

22

equitable relief from alleged unconstitutional prison conditions cannot be brought where

23

there is a pending class action suit involving the same subject matter. McNeil v. Guthrie,

24

945 F.2d 1163, 1165 (10th Cir. 1991); Gillespie v. Crawford, 858 F.2d 1101, 1103 (5th Cir.

25

1988) (en banc). Individual members of the class, like Webb, “may assert any equitable or

26

declaratory claims they have, but they must do so by urging further actions through the

27

class representative and attorney, including contempt proceedings, or by intervention in the

28

class action." Id. For these reasons, dismissal is appropriate because the relief sought by
4

1

Webb can be granted only in the class actions. See Spears v. Johnson, 859 F.2d 853, 855

2

(11th Cir. 1988), vacated in part on other grounds, 876 F.2d 1485 (11th Cir. 1989);

3

Gillespie, 858 F.2d at 1102.

4
5
6
7

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion is GRANTED, and the complaint is
DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: January 19, 2012
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
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
5