McCullock v. Tharratt et al
Filing
30
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 23 . Objections are overruled. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. No later than 4/12/2017, McCullock shall file his amended complaint that corrects the defects the R&R identified. Failure to fil e an amended complaint as ordered may result in dismissal of the case without further notice to McCullock. McCullock must still show cause why Defendant Jin Kul Yu should not be dismissed for failure to serve, as previously ordered. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 2/15/17.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kas)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ROBERT MCCULLOCK,
CASE NO. 16cv457-LAB (DHB)
12
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION; AND
vs.
13
14
15
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
R. STEVEN THARRATT, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff, a prisoner in state custody, filed this 28 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Defendants’
18
motion to dismiss was referred to the magistrate judge for a report and recommendation. On
19
January 20, 2017, Magistrate Judge Louisa Porter issued her report and recommendation
20
(the “R&R”), recommending that the motion to be dismissed with leave to amend. The R&R
21
also ordered McCullock to show cause why Jin Kul Yu should not be dismissed, because this
22
Defendant has not been served as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). (See Docket no. 12
23
(return of service unexecuted, dated July 13, 2016).) The R&R gave the parties until
24
February 10, 2017 to file objections.
25
Plaintiff then filed a motion for extension of time (Docket no. 25), which the Court
26
construed as a motion for more time to file an amended complaint and possibly also for an
27
extension of time to show cause regarding his failure to serve Jin Kul Yu. The Court issued
28
an order giving Plaintiff until April 12, 2017 to amend his complaint. The order noted that the
-1-
16cv457
1
Court understood his request to mean he agreed with the R&R that his complaint should be
2
dismissed without prejudice.
3
McCullock in quick succession then filed two sets of objections to the R&R. (Docket
4
nos. 27, 29.) A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and
5
recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court may accept, reject,
6
or modify, in whole or in part, the R & R's findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C.
7
§ 636(b)(1). The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R & R to which specific written
8
objection is made. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003) (en
9
banc). “The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's
10
findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” Id.
11
In his first set of objections, he complains that Magistrate Judge Louisa Porter is not
12
the magistrate judge assigned to this case. Second, he alleges that the R&R “has not taken
13
into consideration CCHCS’s Utilization Management Medical Services Review Procedures.”
14
Third, he argues he has been denied discovery.
15
With regard to Judge Porter’s involvement in this case, the Court referred the motion
16
to dismiss to her, and mentioned this in its earlier order. Second, because McCullock has
17
not yet pleaded a claim, he is not yet entitled to discovery.1 See Mujica v. AirScan Inc., 771
18
F.3d 580, 593 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009)) ("The
19
Supreme Court has stated, however, that plaintiffs must satisfy the pleading requirements
20
of Rule 8 before the discovery stage, not after it.") His terse and generalized objection that
21
Judge Porter failed to take review procedures into account, without more, does not amount
22
to a “specific written objection.”
23
explanation.
But in his second set of objections, he adds more
24
McCullock’s second set of objections argues, without elaboration, that the R&R did
25
not liberally construe his complaint. Although the Court agrees such pleadings are to be
26
liberally construed, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), this standard does not
27
1
28
McCullock has not requested jurisdictional discovery. See, e.g., Columbia Ins. Co.
v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 577 (N.D. Cal. 1999). But even if he had, it is not
apparent he would be entitled to it.
-2-
16cv457
1
allow the Court to plead McCullock’s claims for him. See Ivey v. Board of Regents of the
2
Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.1982). He doesn’t say what he thinks the R&R
3
missed, or how his complaint should have been construed. The Court has reviewed the
4
R&R and finds that it properly identified and applied standards applicable to pro se civil rights
5
complaints. (See R&R at 7:27–8:9 (giving standards for construction of pro se civil rights
6
claims).)
7
McCullock also cites Hydrick v. Hunter, 449 F.3d 978, 991 (9th Cir. 2006) for the
8
principle that supervisors can be liable for constitutional violations by their subordinates, if
9
they knowingly failed to prevent them. On this basis, he contends that Defendants are liable
10
for the poor medical treatment he has been receiving, because they reviewed his requests
11
for service. That decision has since been modified, however. See Hunter v. Hydrick, 129
12
S. Ct. 2431 (2009) (vacating and remanding for further consideration in light of Iqbal);
13
Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 942 (9th Cir. 2012) (requiring plaintiffs alleging supervisory
14
liability to plead specific facts showing the supervisors’ participation in wrongdoing).
15
No alleged facts connect Defendants Steven Tharratt, a state official, and Daniel
16
Paramo, warden of the prison where McCullock is held, with any deprivations of his rights.
17
McCullock’s is essentially either a respondeat superior theory, or a negligence claim based
18
on their knowledge that prison medical care was generally bad. (See Complaint (Docket no.
19
1) at 2 (alleging Tharratt and Paramo are responsible for those under them, and therefore
20
should be held liable) and 10–11 (alleging these two Defendants are responsible because
21
they knew prison medical care was generally bad, and failed to act).) Factual allegations
22
connecting Defendants Glynn (id. at 3), Roberts (id. at 4), and Walker (id. at 4–5) with
23
violations of McCullock’s constitutional rights are also missing.
24
The complaint also asserts that several of these Defendants failed to adequately train
25
Defendant Jin Kul Yu, but provides no factual allegations to support this conclusion. The
26
complaint alleges that after McCullock was denied adequate medical care, some of these
27
Defendants required Jin Kul Yu to undergo a 30-minute training session, which the complaint
28
alleges was inadequate. It also alleges that Walker removed Jin Kul Yu from his position
-3-
16cv457
1
later. But those things happened only after McCullock alleges the violations occurred, and
2
could not have caused any injury to him. No facts are alleged to support a claim that these
3
Defendants knew of and were deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of harm to McCullock.
4
After a review of the complaint, the Court finds it to be inadequately pled. Even with
5
the benefit of liberal construction, it does not meet pleading standards. See Erickson, 551
6
U.S. at 94; Hydrick, 669 F.3d at 942.
7
Other than this, McCullock has offered no specific written objections. For reasons set
8
forth above, the objections are OVERRULED and the R&R is ADOPTED. The complaint is
9
DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. No later than April 12, 2017, McCullock shall file
10
his amended complaint that corrects the defects the R&R identified. Failure to file an
11
amended complaint as ordered may result in dismissal of the case without further
12
notice to McCullock.
13
14
McCullock must still show cause why Defendant Jin Kul Yu should not be dismissed
for failure to serve, as previously ordered. (See Docket no. 26.)
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
DATED: February 15, 2017
17
18
HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
16cv457
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?