Stewart et al v. State of California

Filing 41

ORDER by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting in part and denying in part 31 Motion to Dismiss. (pjhlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KENNETH STEWART, et al.,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 18-cv-01778-PJH

Plaintiffs,

8
v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 31

12
13

Defendant State of California’s (the “State”) motion to dismiss the Second

14

Amended Complaint (the “SAC”) came on for hearing before this court on November 28,

15

2018. Plaintiff Kenneth Stewart, III appeared through his counsel, Joseph May.

16

Defendant appeared through its counsel, Kyle Lewis. Having read the papers filed by the

17

parties and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and

18

good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART

19

defendant’s motion to dismiss, for the reasons stated at the hearing and as briefly

20

summarized below.

21

As the parties are familiar with both the allegations in the First Amended

22

Complaint, which the court dismissed with leave to amend, see Dkt. 24, and plaintiff’s

23

minimally revised SAC, the court will not repeat them here. In short, plaintiff alleges that

24

his father’s, Kenneth E. Stewart, Jr. (the “decedent”), suicide while an inmate at San

25

Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”) was the result of defendants’ failure to provide necessary

26

medical care. Plaintiff’s SAC names the State and SQSP’s warden, Ronald Davis, and

27

alleges four causes of action under: (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the 8th and

28

14th Amendment against Davis and Doe defendants; (2) Cal. Gov. Code § 845.6 for

1

failure to summon medical care against all defendants; (3) the Americans with Disabilities

2

Act (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, & the Rehabilitation Act (the “RA”) for failing to

3

provide services and accommodations for the decedent’s disability against the State and

4

Doe defendants; and (4) negligence against Davis and Doe defendants.

5
6
7

As was the case with the FAC, plaintiff has yet to serve defendant Davis and the
State moves to dismiss only those causes of action alleged against it.
With respect to plaintiff’s ADA and RA based cause of action, the court finds that

8

plaintiff has plausibly stated a claim for relief and thus DENIES defendant’s motion. The

9

court, however, reminds plaintiff’s counsel that the SAC currently (and likely erroneously)
refers to “29 U.S.C. § 294.” Plaintiff shall ensure that any future amended complaint(s)

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

cites the correct statutory basis for plaintiff’s claims.

12

With respect to plaintiff’s § 845.6 claim, the court finds that while the SAC adds

13

additional detail absent from the previously dismissed FAC, the SAC’s allegations remain

14

too conclusory to state a plausible claim for relief. Specifically, the SAC adds allegations

15

about a conversation between the decedent and an unidentified SQSP guard that

16

occurred at some point shortly before the decedent committed suicide. See Dkt. 27, SAC

17

¶ 14. While the unidentified guard and the decedent’s discussion conveniently reached

18

each element of plaintiff’s § 845.6 claim, compare id. to Castaneda v. Dep't of Corr. &

19

Rehab., 212 Cal. App. 4th 1051, 1070 (2013) (listing elements of a § 845.6 claim), the

20

SAC fails to make any factual allegations about the context in which that conversation

21

occurred. Indeed, other than alleging that the conversation happened to address each of

22

the § 845.6 elements, the SAC does not allege any additional facts about the

23

conversation whatsoever. Nor does the SAC allege any facts about how plaintiff or

24

plaintiff’s counsel came to know about the alleged conversation. After the court noted its

25

concern to plaintiff’s counsel, plaintiff’s counsel declined to divulge how he came to know

26

about the contents of a conversation between a guard plaintiff’s counsel cannot identify

27

and the decedent—who allegedly committed suicide shortly after the conversation took

28

place. In fact, plaintiff’s counsel declined even to describe the basis for his belief that the
2

1

conversation took place at all, let alone how he came to believe certain topics were

2

discussed. For those reasons, the court finds that plaintiff has not stated a plausible

3

claim for relief under § 845.6 and DISMISSES the second cause of action with leave to

4

amend, as follows.

5

Plaintiff shall file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to Rule

6

15(a)(2) no later than December 7, 2018. As discussed, any amendment to plaintiff’s

7

§ 845.6 cause of action must be supported by additional factual allegations, if any exist,

8

about the alleged conversation between the decedent and the unidentified guard and

9

may also be supported by factual allegations based on the SQSP records plaintiff
received on October 23, 2018. Because the court has already granted plaintiff leave to

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

amend his § 845.6 claim, plaintiff need not move to amend that claim.

12

In addition, plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint, which must be filed

13

concurrently with plaintiff’s Rule 15 motion, may name additional defendants or state

14

additional claims that are supported by any additional factual allegations plaintiff wishes

15

to include. However, because plaintiff has already amended once as a matter of right

16

under Rule 15(a), see Dkt. 9, the State has the right to oppose those additional

17

amendments. Accordingly, unlike the above-described § 845.6 amendment, plaintiff

18

must either obtain defendant’s consent to include the additional amendments or explain

19

in the motion for leave to amend how the additional amendments satisfy the applicable

20

Rule 15 standard.

21

Lastly, plaintiff’s amended complaint shall not include (1) any references to Asiana

22

Stewart or allegations suggesting there is more than one plaintiff; or (2) any reference to

23

inapplicable California state procedural law. More generally, plaintiff shall ensure that the

24

proposed amended complaint does not contain any remnants of past complaints or

25

contain matters that have been excluded by the court. See, e.g., SAC ¶ 5 (“Defendant

26

CDCR”); ¶ 8 (“This Court is the proper venue for this action under Code of Civil

27

Procedure section 395(a)”),

28

After reconsidering the most efficient way to proceed, the court VACATES the
3

1
2

deadlines set during the November 28, 2018 hearing in favor of the following:
•

December 7, 2018: Deadline for plaintiff to file his motion for leave to

3

file an amended complaint and proposed amended complaint pursuant

4

to Rule 15.

5

•

plaintiff’s Rule 15 motion.

6
7
8
9

December 17, 2018: Deadline for defendant to file its opposition to

•

December 21, 2018: Deadline for plaintiff to file his reply, if any, in
support of his Rule 15 motion.

The court will decide plaintiff’s Rule 15 motion on the papers. When it does so, it
will set defendant’s deadline to respond and set a deadline for plaintiff to serve defendant

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Davis and, if necessary, any additional defendants. Of course, in lieu of the above

12

schedule, the parties may stipulate to plaintiff filing an amended complaint.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 29, 2018
__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4