Cisneros v. Vangilder et al
Filing
74
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denying 59 Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2018)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
DANIEL CISNEROS,
7
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
J. VANGILDER, et al.,
10
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No.16-cv-00735-HSG
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS
Re: Dkt. No. 59
12
13
Pending before the Court is a motion for judgment on the pleadings by Defendants S.
14
Cupp, J. Cuske, D. Melton, K. Ohland, J. Vangilder, and J. Vasquez. Dkt. No. 59. For the reasons
15
set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion.1
16
I.
BACKGROUND
17
A.
18
For purposes of this motion, the Court takes the following allegations of fact to be true.
Factual Allegations
19
Plaintiff Daniel Cisneros is incarcerated in the “C-pod” at Pelican Bay State Prison (“Pelican
20
Bay”). Dkt. No. 55 (First Amended Complaint, or “FAC”) ¶ 14. Defendants are employees at
21
Pelican Bay. See id. ¶¶ 8-13. Plaintiff alleges that sometime after 3:00 p.m. on June 4, 2015,
22
Vangilder and Vasquez were inside a control booth which connects to the C-pod, “horse-playing”
23
with a “military-grade” grenade “designed to rapidly disperse oleoresin capsicum (‘OC’) into the
24
air.” See id. ¶¶ 14-17. OC is known to cause pain on contact. See id. ¶ 16. Vangilder
25
subsequently dropped the grenade, which “caused it to detonate and release a noxious cloud of OC
26
into the control booth, D-Pod, and C-Pod where [Plaintiff] was housed.” Id. ¶ 20. Upon being
27
1
28
The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is
deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b).
1
exposed to the OC, Plaintiff began coughing, gagging, and choking, in addition to experiencing an
2
“excruciating burning” on his skin, and in his eyes, nose, mouth, throat, and lungs. See id. ¶ 19.
3
Plaintiff alleges that Vangilder and Vasquez ignored his and the other affected prisoners’
4
calls for help, and instead “focused on decontaminating themselves” and obtaining medical care.
5
See id. ¶¶ 22, 25. Plaintiff further alleges that Vangilder and Vasquez did not close the control
6
booth windows to contain the OC, evacuate or ventilate the pods, show Plaintiff how to
7
decontaminate himself, or provide him with access to medical care. See id. ¶¶ 24-25. Defendants
8
Cupp, Cuske, Ohland, and Melton were informed of the incident, and Cupp, Cuske, and Ohland
9
went to the scene of the detonation shortly thereafter. Id. ¶ 26. When they arrived, they ignored
calls for help by Plaintiff and the other prisoners, and did not “instruct their respective
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
subordinates to ventilate the pods, assist the prisoners with decontamination of their persons and
12
cells, and provide the prisoners with access to medical care.” Id. ¶ 27.
13
Plaintiff’s pod “remained contaminated with OC” for several hours following the
14
detonation, id. ¶ 28, and as of 9:00 p.m. that night, “the pods still had not been ventilated, none of
15
the prisoners had been allowed to decontaminate themselves, their cells, or their belongings and
16
none of the prisoners had been allowed medical attention,” id. ¶ 32.
17
B.
18
Plaintiff filed the FAC on December 1, 2017.2 As relevant here, Plaintiff alleges battery
Procedural Posture
19
against Vangilder and Vasquez. See FAC ¶¶ 34-37. Defendants answered on December 13, 2017.
20
Dkt. No. 58. On April 26, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Dkt.
21
No. 59 (“Mot.”). Plaintiff filed his opposition on May 17, 2018, Dkt. No. 72 (“Opp.”), and
22
Defendants replied on May 23, 2018, Dkt. No. 73 (“Reply”).
23
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
“After the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for
24
25
judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Granting a judgment on the pleadings is
26
proper when, “taking all the allegations in the pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to
27
2
28
This case is related to Falla v. Ducart, No. 16-cv-0869-HSG (PR), Manriquez v. Vangilder, No.
16-cv-01320-HSG (PR), and Chaidez v. Vangilder, No. 16-cv-1330-HSG (PR). Dkt. No. 29.
2
1
judgment as a matter of law.” Gregg v. Haw., Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 870 F.3d 883, 887 (9th Cir.
2
2017) (quoting Nelson v. City of Irvine, 143 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir. 1998)). “Because a Rule
3
12(c) motion is functionally identical to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the same standard of review
4
applies to motions brought under either rule.” Id. (quoting Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys.,
5
Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the complaint lacks a cognizable
6
legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” Mendiondo v. Centinela
8
Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (requiring that
9
a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
10
relief”). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim
12
is facially plausible when a plaintiff pleads “factual content that allows the court to draw the
13
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
14
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In reviewing the plausibility of a complaint, courts “accept factual
15
allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the
16
nonmoving party.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir.
17
2008). Nonetheless, Courts do not “accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory,
18
unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536
19
F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008).
20
III.
21
DISCUSSION
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s battery claim against Vangilder and Vasquez under
22
Rule 12(c), contending that Plaintiff “fails to allege factual content pointing to the necessary
23
intentional action.” See Mot. at 3. The Court disagrees.
24
“The elements of civil battery are: (1) defendant intentionally performed an act that
25
resulted in a harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff’s person; (2) plaintiff did not consent
26
to the contact; and (3) the harmful or offensive contact caused injury, damage, loss or harm to
27
plaintiff.” Brown v. Ransweiler, 171 Cal. App. 4th 516, 526-27 (2009). “[T]he element of intent
28
is satisfied if the evidence shows defendant acted with a ‘willful disregard’ of the plaintiff’s
3
1
rights.” Ashcraft v. King, 228 Cal. App. 3d 604, 613 (1991) (citing Lopez v. Surchia, 112 Cal.
2
App. 2d 314, 318 (1952)); see also Lopez, 112 Cal. App. 2d at 318 (“In order to establish a case of
3
civil assault and battery, all that is necessary is that the evidence show that plaintiff’s injury was
4
caused by defendant’s violence, or that defendant acted with wanton, willful or reckless disregard
5
of plaintiff’s rights.”).
As pertinent here, Plaintiff alleges that Vangilder and Vasquez were “horse-playing” with
6
7
a “military-grade” grenade, designed to release a painful chemical, in a confined space that
8
connected to Plaintiff’s pod. See FAC ¶¶ 15-20. Vangilder subsequently “dropped the grenade,
9
causing it to detonate,” and causing the OC to seep into Plaintiff’s living space and injure him.
See id. ¶¶ 20-21. Drawing all inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, as the Court must do at this stage of
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
the litigation, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately pled facts sufficient to support an
12
inference that Vangilder and Vasquez demonstrated “willful disregard” for his rights. It is
13
plausible that their alleged carelessness with a device designed to release a painful chemical into
14
the air near Plaintiff’s living space was sufficiently reckless to warrant a finding of intent. Any
15
failure of actual proof on this claim can be addressed on a motion for directed verdict at trial.
16
IV.
CONCLUSION
17
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
Dated: June 8, 2018
20
21
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?