Doyle v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations et al

Filing 144

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 123 Motion to Dismiss; granting 132 Motion to Dismiss (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

SEAN PATRICK DOYLE,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Case No.: 12-CV-2769 YGR

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AND REHABILITATIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
Now before the Court is the Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

18

of Defendants G. Ellis, L. Zamora, M. Sepulveda, M. Kuersten, and J. Clark Kelso (“individual

19

CDCR defendants”) (Dkt. No. 123), and the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant California

20

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) (Dkt. No. 132).

21

Having considered the arguments in the papers and at the hearing, and for the reasons stated

22

on the record and below, the Motion is GRANTED without leave to amend as to the claims against J.

23

Clark Kelso and is GRANTED with leave to amend as to the remaining individual CDCR

24

defendants. The Motion to Dismiss of CDCR is GRANTED without leave to amend.

25
26

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Sean Patrick Doyle, a prisoner in California state custody, filed the above-styled

27

civil-rights action in May 2012 while proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s original complaint, which was

28

over 100 pages long, alleged various state law medical and retaliation claims, and federal claims

1

under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988, and 1997(e), as well as under the Eighth Amendment.

2

Plaintiff named the following defendants: CDCR; Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”) Chief

3

Medical Officer M. Sepulveda; CTF Chief Executive Officer G. Ellis; California Correctional

4

Health Care Services (“CCHCS”) Chief J. D. Zamora1; CCHCS Receiver J. Clarke Kelso, CTF

5

Physician M. Kuersten; and “Doe No. 1 through Doe No. 20.” The Court notes that plaintiff has

6

identified Doe Defendants Nos. 18 through 20 to include “Correctional Corporation of America

7

[“CCA”] (Doe No. 20), and its agents, officers, or employees (Doe[] No. 18 and No. 19).” (Compl.

8

at 6, 11-L.)
On January 16, 2014, two attorneys appeared on plaintiff’s behalf. (Dkt. No. 98.)

9
10

Following the appearance of counsel, the Court ordered as follows:

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

1.

12
13
14

The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE plaintiff's operative
complaint, which is 108 pages long, to give him the opportunity to file a
simple, concise, and direct Amended Complaint that:
a. States clearly and simply each claim he seeks to bring in federal court
as required under Rule 8, such that it:

15
16

i.

Sets forth each claim in a separate numbered paragraph;

17

ii.

Identifies each defendant and the specific action or
actions each defendant took, or failed to take, that
allegedly caused the deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional
rights; and

iii.

Identifies the injury resulting from each claim;

18
19
20
21

b. Explains how he has exhausted his administrative remedies as to each
claim as against each defendant before he filed this action;

22
23

c. Only alleges those claims that are properly joined under Rule 20(a)
(concerning joinder of claims and defendants) or, stated differently,
claims that:

24
25

i.

26
27
28

Arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences; and

1

In his Complaint, plaintiff erroneously referred to defendant as “Zamola.” Plaintiff has
represented that this error will be corrected in his Second Amended Complaint.
2

1

ii.

Present questions of law or fact common to all defendants;

2

d. Does not make conclusory allegations linking each defendant by
listing them as having "direct involvement" to his claims without
specifying how each defendant was linked through their actions;

3
4

e. Does not name any defendant who did not act but is linked solely in
his or her respondent superior capacity, or against whom plaintiff
cannot allege facts that would establish either supervisorial or
municipal liability; and

5
6
7

f. Does not name Doe defendants because any claims against Doe
defendants are dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff moving for
leave to amend to add them as named defendants once he learns their
identities.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

(Dkt. No. 103 at 2.)

12
13
14
15
16
17

In response thereto, plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on May 8, 2014. (Dkt. No.
106 (“FAC”).) Plaintiff now alleges only four claims for relief: (1) violations of 42 U.S.C. section
1983; (2) Negligence; (3) Negligence per se; and (4) Injunctive Relief. In addition, plaintiff now
names only seven Defendants: CDCR; Kelso; Sepulveda; Ellis; Zamora; Kuersten; and CCA.2
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit. (FAC at ¶
46.)

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

In support of these claims, plaintiff alleges that starting in 2000, he suffered from serious
medical needs relating to his back that went unmet. (FAC at ¶ 16.) Plaintiff asserts that after
beginning to experience significant and acute back pain, Dr. Harold D. Segal of the California
Men’s Colony-East at San Luis Obispo (“CMC-E”) diagnosed him with degenerative disc disease.
Dr. Segal prescribed epidural injections and told Plaintiff that he would require back surgery to
correct the problem. (FAC at ¶¶ 16-17.) The individual CDCR defendants worked at the
Correctional Training Facility where plaintiff was relocated after his time at CMC-E, and allegedly

25
26
27
28

2

In the Order dismissing plaintiff’s original complaint (Dkt. No. 103 at 2), the Court ordered
that plaintiff should not name Doe Defendants in his FAC. Plaintiff has nonetheless included as
defendants in his FAC Does 1-20. As stated on the record, plaintiff’s Doe defendants are
DISMISSED.
3

1

knew that plaintiff had these medical needs but nonetheless failed to take steps to address them.

2

(FAC at ¶¶ 9-12.) All four of the individual CDCR defendants allegedly had the ability to obtain

3

the proper medical care for plaintiff, but did not so do. (FAC at ¶¶ 9-12.) Plaintiff further contends

4

that the individual CDCR defendants stopped plaintiff’s epidural injections and transferred him to

5

the Correctional Training Facility at Soledad, California, when he complained that he was no

6

longer receiving his medication.3 (FAC at ¶ 18.) Because of this transfer, plaintiff claims, the

7

surgery that Dr. Segal recommended was not performed. (FAC at ¶ 19.)
LEGAL STANDARD

8

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in a complaint.

9

“While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires

12

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

13

will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “[F]actual allegations

14

must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id.
In considering a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a court must accept as true all material

15
16

allegations in the complaint, as well as all reasonable inferences to be drawn from them. Pareto v.

17

F.D.I.C., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998). The complaint must be read in the light most

18

favorable to the nonmoving party. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir.

19

2001); Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). However, “[i]n

20

keeping with these principles a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by

21

identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the

22

assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must

23

be supported by factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Moss v. United States

24
25
26
27
28

3

Plaintiff appears to claim that the individual CDCR defendants, all of whom worked at the
Correctional Training Facility at Soledad, California, actively participated in stopping his epidural
injections while he was housed at the California Men’s Colony-East at San Luis Obispo and in
transferring him from that facility. Should plaintiff elect to file a second amended complaint, he
must set forth factual allegations relating to how these defendants were capable of committing said
acts despite not being employees of the facility in which plaintiff was housed when the acts alleged
occurred.
4

1

Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[F]or a complaint to survive a motion to

2

dismiss, the non-conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences from that content, must be

3

plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.”) (citing Twombly and Iqbal );

4

Sprewell, 266 F.3d at 988; W. Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).

5

Ultimately, “[d]etermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a

6

context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and

7

common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663-64.

8
9

Furthermore, unless a court converts a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary
judgment, a court cannot consider material outside of the complaint (e.g., facts presented in briefs,
affidavits, or discovery materials). In re Am. Cont'l Corp./Lincoln Sav. & Loan Sec. Litig., 102

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

F.3d 1524, 1537 (9th Cir. 1996), rev'd on other grounds sub nom Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg Weiss

12

Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998). A court may, however, consider exhibits submitted

13

with or alleged in the complaint and matters that may be judicially noticed pursuant to Federal Rule

14

of Evidence 201. In re Silicon Graphics Inc. Sec. Litig., 183 F.3d 970, 986 (9th Cir. 1999); Lee v.

15

City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001).

16

As a general rule, leave to amend a complaint which has been dismissed should be freely

17

granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, leave to amend may be denied when “the court

18

determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not

19

possibly cure the deficiency.” Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv–Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393,

20

1401 (9th Cir. 1986); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000).

21
22
23

ANALYSIS
1. Claims Against Federal Receiver J. Clark Kelso
Kelso argues that plaintiff’s FAC should be dismissed for three independent reasons. First,

24

Kelso contends that the FAC fails to meet the pleading standard set forth by Twombly and Iqbal.

25

(Dkt. No. 123 at 10.) Second, with respect to plaintiff’s constitutional claims, Kelso asserts that he

26

is not a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at 12.) Third, as a Receiver appointed

27

pursuant to a judicial order, Kelso is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. (Id. at 5.)

28

5

1

As an initial matter, the Court finds that plaintiff’s FAC does not state sufficiently “the

2

‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ ” against Kelso. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. In order to

3

overcome a motion to dismiss, the FAC must both state cognizable claims against Kelso and supply

4

enough “factual allegations” to support those claims. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Here, plaintiff does

5

not advance any specific factual allegations against Kelso other than that he is the Court-appointed

6

Receiver with the “ability and power” to address his medical needs, and that Kelso has been “on

7

notice of Plaintiff’s serious medical needs” since the filing of plaintiff’s original Complaint, which

8

purportedly put Kelso on notice. (FAC at ¶ 8.) Such general assertions do not plausibly state a

9

claim for relief. Without “factual content” to explain how and why Kelso is responsible for
plaintiff’s injury, the Court cannot “draw [a] reasonable inference that [Kelso] is liable for the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

12

More fundamentally, even if plaintiff could allege a plausible claim against Kelso, Kelso

13

would be immune from suit. When Judge Henderson appointed a Receiver of the California prison

14

medical care system, he ordered that: “The Receiver and his staff shall have the status of officers

15

and agents of this Court and as such shall be vested with the same immunities as vest with this

16

Court.” Those judicial immunities extend to immunity from suit. See Pierson v. Ray, 286 U.S.

17

547, 553–54 (1967) (“Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the

18

immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction .

19

. ..”). This “quasi-judicial immunity” shields Kelso from suit for all actions taken in his capacity as

20

Receiver. See In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, plaintiff seeks to sue Kelso

21

in his capacity as Receiver for acts or omissions relating to plaintiff’s medical needs. Kelso is

22

immune. See Haller v. Hartley, No. 1:12-cv-01599 JLT (PC), 2013 WL 322321 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28,

23

2013) (“[T]he Court finds that Kelso is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity and suit may not be

24

maintained against him.”). Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against Kelso must be dismissed. See,

25

e.g., Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Court for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1387 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1987).

26

Because no amendment could overcome Kelso’s immunity from suit, any amendment

27

would be futile and the Court need not consider Kelso’s remaining arguments. For these reasons,

28

plaintiff’s claims against Kelso are DISMISSED with prejudice.
6

1
2

2. Claims Against CDCR
In his FAC, plaintiff asserts claims against CDCR for negligence, negligence per se

3

pursuant to California Government Code section 845.6, and violation of the Eighth Amendment.

4

CDCR has moved to dismiss these claims on the basis of its Eleventh Amendment immunity. (Dkt.

5

No. 132.) In response thereto, plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition wherein he

6

acknowledged that the Eleventh Amendment bars his claims against CDCR. (Dkt. No. 137.)

7

Plaintiff nonetheless suggests that the Court should remand his claims against CDCR to California

8

state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1441(c)(2). The Court, having considered the arguments

9

made at the hearing and having reviewed the parties’ supplemental briefing on this question, finds

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

remand inappropriate in this case.
It is well-established in the Ninth Circuit that a “dismissal based on Eleventh Amendment

12

immunity is not a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but instead rests on an

13

affirmative defense.” Elmwood v. Drescher, 456 F.3d 943, 949 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations

14

omitted). The removal statute upon which plaintiff relies for his remand argument, however, does

15

not contemplate that where an affirmative defense bars a federal court from entertaining a claim, a

16

federal court should remand that claim to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (mandating remand

17

where subject-matter jurisdiction over the case is lacking; not addressing propriety of remand

18

where affirmative defense bars federal court from presiding over claim). Where as here, plaintiff

19

has made no showing that his ability to pursue these claims in state court would be materially

20

prejudiced by a dismissal, dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against CDCR is required. See Randy’s

21

Trucking Inc. v. City of Shafter, No. 08-CV-00819-OWW-DLB, 2008 WL 5156665, at *3 (E.D.

22

Cal. Dec. 8, 2008).

23

Because CDCR is not a “person” under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, plaintiff would be unable to

24

successfully litigate his Eighth Amendment claim against CDCR in California state court. See

25

Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 951 (2004) (“State agencies . . . are not “persons” within the

26

meaning of § 1983, and are therefore not amenable to suit under that statute.”); see also Rossco

27

Holdings Inc. v. State of California, 212 Cal. App. 3d 642, 661-62 (2004) (State of California and

28

its agencies are not “persons” under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.) Therefore dismissal with prejudice of
7

1

the Eighth Amendment claim against CDCR is appropriate. CDCR argues that plaintiff would be

2

unable to successfully prosecute his state law negligence claims against CDCR in California state

3

court because he has not complied with the California Tort Claims Act. (Dkt. No. 142 at 3.)

4

Because plaintiff’s compliance with that Act is unsettled, dismissal with prejudice of his negligence

5

claims against CDCR would be improper at this time. Accordingly, plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

6

claim against CDCR is DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff’s state law claims against CDCR are

7

DISMISSED without prejudice to his ability to bring these claims separately in state court.

8
9

3. Eighth Amendment Claim Against the Individual CDCR Defendants
In his FAC, plaintiff alleges that the individual CDCR defendants Zamora, Ellis, Kuersten,
and Sepulveda “were aware of Plaintiff’s serious medical needs,” “[knew] that Plaintiff faced a

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

substantial risk of serious harm,” and “fail[ed] to take reasonable steps . . . to obtain necessary and

12

proper medical treatment for Plaintiff’s medical conditions.” (FAC at ¶¶ 9-12.) The individual

13

CDCR defendants argue that plaintiff offers merely conclusory allegations and a bare recitation of

14

the elements of a deliberate indifference claim. (Dkt. No. 123 at 8-10.) Specifically, they claim

15

that plaintiff offers no factual support for his assertions that defendants knew of his medical issues,

16

failed to act to remedy the situation, or had the ability to do so. (Dkt. No. 123 at 8-10.)

17

The Court agrees that plaintiff’s factual allegations are insufficient to make probable his

18

Eighth Amendment claim against the individual CDCR defendants. Deliberate indifference to a

19

prisoner’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,

20

104 (1976). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met:

21

(1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious, and (2) the official is, subjectively,

22

deliberately indifferent to the inmate’s health or safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834

23

(1994). A “serious” medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in

24

further significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id. The following are

25

examples of indications that a prisoner has a “serious” need for medical treatment: the existence of

26

an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or

27

treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily

28

activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain. McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050,
8

1

1059–60 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133,

2

1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

3

A prison official exhibits deliberate indifference when he knows of and disregards a

4

substantial risk of serious harm to inmate health. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. The official must

5

both know of “facts from which the inference could be drawn” that an excessive risk of harm

6

exists, and he must actually draw that inference. Id. “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-

7

patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.”

8

Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). Where doctors have chosen one course

9

of action and a prisoner-plaintiff contends that they should have chosen another course of action,
the plaintiff “must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

under the circumstances . . . and the plaintiff must show that they chose this course in conscious

12

disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health.” Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th

13

Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted).

14

Here, plaintiff alleges that the individual CDCR defendants were “aware” of his “serious

15

medical needs,” and that he “faced a substantial risk of harm,” and they nonetheless failed to take

16

steps to ensure plaintiff was provided “necessary and proper medical treatment.” Other than the

17

recitation of the elements of his Eighth Amendment claim, however, plaintiff offers no factual

18

allegations to make his Eighth Amendment claim plausible. For example, although plaintiff alleges

19

that defendants stopped his epidural injections, failed to provide him with pain medication, and did

20

not present him for appointments with doctors (FAC at ¶¶ 18, 20, 22), plaintiff provides no facts to

21

support his assertion that each of the named defendants knew of his serious medical need or that

22

they consciously disregarded a serious risk of harm. By the same token, plaintiff does not specify

23

the role each individual defendant played in the operative factual basis for the alleged Eighth

24

Amendment violation, nor does he state facts to make plausible any inference relating to each

25

defendant’s particular role in the alleged wrongdoing. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (a pleading

26

should give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and upon what grounds it rests). Even

27

construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, his conclusory and generalized allegations do not

28

state a claim that he is entitled to relief as to each of the individual CDCR defendants.
9

For these reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the Eighth

1
2

Amendment. This claim is thus DISMISSED without prejudice.
4.

3

State Law Negligence Claims against the Individual CDCR Defendants
Plaintiff next alleges claims for: (1) negligence; and (2) negligence per se pursuant to

4
5

California Government Code section 845.6 against the individual CDCR defendants. The

6

individual CDCR defendants counter that plaintiff’s negligence claim offers only conclusory

7

statements devoid of the facts necessary to properly state a claim. (Dkt. No. 123 at 13-14.) They

8

also argue that plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for negligence per se

9

under the statute. (Dkt. No. 123 at 14-16.) The Court considers each claim in turn.
A. Negligence Claim

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Under California law, an action in negligence requires a showing that the defendant owed

12

the plaintiff a legal duty, that the defendant breached the duty, and that the breach was a proximate

13

or legal cause of injuries suffered by the plaintiff. United States Liab. Ins. Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes,

14

Inc., 1 Cal.3d 586, 594 (Cal. 1970); 6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, § 732, p.

15

60.

16

Plaintiff’s negligence claim incorporates by reference all of the allegations in the FAC and

17

includes a recitation of the elements of a negligence claim. (FAC at ¶ 35.) But, as discussed in the

18

section immediately above, plaintiff’s allegations amount to little more than conclusory statements

19

of culpability grounded in insufficient factual support and thus, do not demonstrate the requisite

20

plausibility under Iqbal and Twombly. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

21

Likewise, a bare recitation of the elements of a claim is insufficient to fulfill the pleading

22

requirements. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (compliance with the pleading standards “requires

23

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

24

will not do . . ..”). In order to state successfully a negligence claim, plaintiff must allege specific

25

facts that support an inference that each CDCR defendant’s action or inaction comports with the

26

elements of his claim. Because he has not done so, the Court finds that plaintiff’s negligence claim

27

does not meet the FRCP Rule 8 pleading standard. Accordingly, this claim is DISMISSED with

28

leave to amend.
10

1

B. Negligence Per Se Claim

2

To support his claim for negligence per se, plaintiff cites to California Government Code

3

section 845.6.
Public entities in California are not liable for tortious injury unless liability is imposed by

4
5

statute. Cal. Govt. Code § 815. “[S]overeign immunity is the rule in California; governmental

6

liability is limited to exceptions specifically set forth by statute.” Cochran v. Herzog Engraving

7

Co., 155 Cal. App. 3d 405, 409 (1984). Section 845.6 states in relevant part:

8

“Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for injury proximately
caused by the failure of the employee to furnish or obtain medical care for a
prisoner in his custody; but, except as otherwise provided by Sections 855.8 and
856 [concerning mental illness and addiction], a public employee, and the public
entity where the employee is acting within the scope of his employment, is liable
if the employee knows or has reason to know that the prisoner is in need of
immediate medical care and he fails to take reasonable action to summon such
medical care.”

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Castaneda v. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 212 Cal. App. 4th 1051, 1070 (2013) (review denied May 1,

15

2013).

16

In order to state a claim under section 845.6, a prisoner must establish three elements: (1)

17

the public employee knew or had reason to know of the need (2) for immediate medical care, and

18

(3) failed to reasonably summon such care. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir. 2006)

19

(citation omitted). “Liability under section 845.6 is limited to serious and obvious medical

20

conditions requiring immediate care.” Watson v. State, 21 Cal. App. 4th 836 (1993).

21

Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to establish that defendants had the requisite

22

knowledge of his need for medical care under the terms of section 845.6. It is nowhere alleged that

23

plaintiff’s medical need was obvious or severe and that defendants knew and chose to ignore that

24

need. Rather, plaintiff’s condition was chronic and he received regular treatment for his symptoms.

25

Plaintiff may desire different care than what he was provided, but this alone does not meet the

26

standard for relief under section 845.6. As discussed above, although plaintiff alleges that the

27

defendants stopped his epidural injections, failed to provide him with pain medication, and did not

28

present him for appointments with doctors (FAC at ¶¶ 18, 20, 22), plaintiff does not specify which

11

1

of the individual CDCR defendants committed these acts, or allege what they knew of his condition

2

and when they knew it. The only symptoms plaintiff alleges that he suffered were pressure in his

3

back and back pain. (FAC at ¶ 25.) To the extent that his disc disease manifested in symptoms that

4

were perceivable to the defendants, he would be well-advised to set those symptoms out in any

5

proposed Second Amended Complaint. He must also plead facts making clear the role of each

6

individual CDCR defendant. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (pleading should give the defendant

7

fair notice of what the claim is and upon what grounds it rests). In light of these deficiencies, the

8

Court concludes that plaintiff has not complied with the pleading standard under FRCP 8(a). For

9

this reason, plaintiff’s claim under section 845.6 is DISMISSED without prejudice.
C. California Tort Claims Act

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

As a final matter, plaintiff has failed to allege that with respect to his state law negligence

12
13

claims, he has complied with the California Tort Claims Act. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 900–998.3.
The California Tort Claims Act requires, as a condition precedent to suit against a public

14

entity, the timely presentation of a written claim and the rejection of the claim in whole or in part.

15

Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Snipes v.

16

City of Bakersfield, 145 Cal. App. 3d 861 (1983)). “Where compliance with the Tort Claims Act is

17

required, the plaintiff must allege compliance or circumstances excusing compliance, or the

18

complaint is subject to general demurrer.” Id.; see also Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t,

19

839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988) (state tort law claims are barred unless presented to public entity

20

before commencing suit) (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905, 945.4, 950.2 (West 1980); Ortega v.

21

O'Connor, 764 F.2d 703, 707 (9th Cir. 1985) (failure to comply with claim-filing requirements

22

imposed by California Torts Claims Act bars pendent state claims), rev’d on other grounds, 480

23

U.S. 709(1987); Neal v. Gatlin, 35 Cal. App. 3d 871, 877–78 (1973) (where public employee was

24

acting within employee’s express or implied authority, notwithstanding wrongful nature of the act,

25

complaint based on such act was properly dismissed for failure to allege filing of claim with

26

employing public entity)).

27

Here, plaintiff’s FAC does not mention, much less allege, compliance with California Tort

28

Claims Act procedures. Although plaintiff broadly claims that he has exhausted his administrative
12

1

remedies (FAC at ¶ 34), that alone is not sufficient. In order for his suit against CDCR and the

2

individual CDCR defendants to proceed here, plaintiff must demonstrate that he presented a written

3

claim to CDCR that was rejected in whole or in part. See Moore v. Thomas, 653 F. Supp. 2d 984,

4

1007 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (discussing the requirements for suing California state entities and

5

employees; citing Snipes, 145 Cal. App. 3d 861). Such a claim must be filed with the state entity

6

within 6 months of the date of the incident unless leave to file a late claim is granted. Id.

7

Plaintiff’s FAC does not allege compliance with these requirements; nor does it even mention the

8

California Tort Claims Act.

9

As was stated on the record during the hearing on this Motion, the parties are to meet and
confer regarding plaintiff’s compliance with the California Tort Claims Act. Upon filing any

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

proposed Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff shall provide a statement concerning the nature and

12

result of the meet and confer.

13
14
15

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.
5. Injunctive Relief Remedy
Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court “preventing Defendants from denying Plaintiff

16

necessary medical care.” (FAC at ¶ 45.) However, plaintiff’s FAC does not demonstrate how the

17

relief he requests would remedy his alleged injuries. Plaintiff’s FAC appears to request injunctive

18

relief against CDCR and the individual CDCR defendants, but plaintiff is no longer housed in a

19

CDCR facility. (FAC at ¶ 41-46.) The FAC also appears to request injunctive relief against

20

defendant CCA, the operator of the facility where he is currently housed, but CCA has not been

21

served as of the date of this Order. At the hearing on this motion, plaintiff represented that the

22

request for injunctive relief relates solely to defendant CCA, but his FAC does not reflect this fact.

23

Should plaintiff file a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint and seek injunctive

24

relief, he must specify to which defendants such relief pertains.

25

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is DISMISSED without prejudice.

26
27
28

13

CONCLUSION

1
2

Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss claims against Defendants G. Ellis, L. Zamora, M.

3

Sepulveda, and M. Kuersten is GRANTED with leave to amend. The Motion to Dismiss claims

4

against Defendant J. Clark Kelso is GRANTED without leave to amend, and the claims against him

5

are DISMISSED with prejudice. The Motion to Dismiss of CDCR is GRANTED without leave to

6

amend. Plaintiff’s state law claims against CDCR are DISMISSED without prejudice, and his Eighth

7

Amendment claim against CDCR is DISMISSED with prejudice.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

If plaintiff wishes to file a Second Amended Complaint, he must do so as part of a Motion
for Leave to Amend, to be filed no later than 30 days after the date of this Order. Any Proposed
Second Amended Complaint must fulfill the following requirements:
1. Plaintiff must take care to set out clearly which allegations pertain to which defendants
and which facts support each allegation;
2. Plaintiff must specify which defendants are subject to injunctive and other forms of
relief;

15

3. In order to plead state law negligence claims against the individual CDCR defendants,

16

plaintiff must also affirmatively plead that he has fulfilled the exhaustion requirements

17

of the California Tort Claims Act; and

18

4. Plaintiff may not name Doe defendants in a Proposed Second Amended Complaint.

19
20

In addition, plaintiff shall serve defendant CCA no later than 30 days from the date of this

21

Order. Failure to serve CCA by this deadline shall result in dismissal of claims against CCA for

22

failure to timely serve pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26

Date: October 31, 2014

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

27
28

14