Blanchard v. San Diego, County of et al

Filing 71

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Court recommends that: 1.) 31 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by County of San Diego be granted as to the injunctive-relief claim only and otherwise be denied; 2.) 35 MOTION to Strike 33 Sec ond Amended Complaint filed by County of San Diego be granted; 3.) 50 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Jeffery Weishaar, Buchanan be granted; 4.) 52 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Global Medical Staffing Inc., Katherin e Homann, John Gill, Cynthia Purviance be granted as to the injunctive-relief claim, granted as to the Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Homann and Global Medical Staffing only, denied as to the medical malpractice claim, and otherwise denied; 5. ) 59 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by John Serra be granted; and 6.) If the District Judge adopts or modifies this Report, Plaintiff shall have 14 days from that order to file a third amended complaint, If he chooses not t o file a third amended complaint, the case will proceed on the first amended complaint, but only as to the remaining defendants and claims. Upon being served with this Report, each party has 14 days to file any objections. A party may respond to any such objection within 14 days of being served with it. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 8/8/2017. (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

Richard Blanchard,

11
12
13
14

Case No.: 16-cv-1783-BAS-AGS
Plaintiff,

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
DISMISS (ECF Nos. 31, 50, 52, 59)
AND ON THE COUNTY’S MOTION
TO STRIKE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT (ECF No. 35)

v.
County of San Diego, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff sued prison doctors and others for ignoring his arthritis and injured knee,

17

and actively thwarting his attempts to see the required medical specialists. Defendants

18

move to dismiss. The main issue is whether the facts plaintiff alleges—which must be

19

presumed true at this stage—sufficiently establish an Eighth Amendment violation.

20

I

21

BACKGROUND

22

Plaintiff Richard Blanchard claims that while he was an inmate at certain San Diego

23

County detention and reentry facilities, the County and its contract medical provider,

24

Global Medical Staffing, Inc., had a “policy or custom of restricting, if not outright denying

25

referrals to specialists when such care is expensive.” (ECF No. 30, at 2, 23.) For example,

26

on September 2, 2015, Blanchard saw defendant Dr. John Gill about his rheumatoid

27

arthritis and torn meniscus, which required rheumatology and orthopedic consults,

28

respectively. According to Blanchard, Dr. Gill acknowledged that Blanchard required
1
16-cv-1783-BAS-AGS

1

“more advance[d] medications” to relieve his arthritis, which could only be obtained from

2

a rheumatology specialist. But when Blanchard asked for a referral, he alleges that Dr. Gill

3

replied, “You will need to wait until you’re released [11 months later]. The Sheriff’s

4

department will not pay for a specialist.” (ECF No. 30, at 5-6.) And when Blanchard

5

inquired if he could pay for his own orthopedic specialist to examine his injured knee,

6

Dr. Gill purportedly responded, “The San Diego Sheriff’s [Department] would not pay for

7

transport and security[.]” (Id. at 6.)

8

This discouraging appointment prompted Blanchard to engage in fruitless attempts

9

to hire his own specialists, which he asserts delayed him from finally obtaining state-

10

funded specialist referrals. (See id. at 6-11.) On December 3, 2015—three months after his

11

first request to Dr. Gill—prison officials finally arranged for Blanchard to see a

12

rheumatologist, and exactly one week later he saw an orthopedic specialist. (Id. at 14-15.)

13

But it appears his arthritic pain was not sufficiently alleviated until at least June 28, 2016,

14

when the rheumatologist increased his medication dosage. (Id. at 21.)

15

A similar scenario unfolded at the same time with defendant Dr. Cynthia Kline-

16

Purviance.1 On October 27, 2015, Blanchard asked her for an orthopedic referral due to

17

“repeated issues related to the torn meniscus,” including “swelling, pain and difficulty

18

walking.” (ECF No. 30, at 10.) He asserts that she, too, responded that the “Sheriff’s

19

Department would not approve an orthopedic referral[.]” (Id.) As with Dr. Gill, Blanchard

20

then discussed the possibility of hiring a private specialist, and Dr. Purviance allegedly

21

advised him to “speak to [the] watch commander for arrangement[s].” (Id.) More than six

22

weeks after this medical visit, Blanchard finally secured his first appointment with a state-

23

funded orthopedic specialist. (Id. at 15.) And on May 18, 2016, his meniscus was surgically

24

repaired. (Id. at 20.)

25
26
27
28

1

The parties appear to refer to defendant Cynthia Kline-Purviance, M.D., as
“Dr. Purviance.” (See ECF No. 30, at 3; ECF No. 52, at 7.) So, the Court will generally
refer to her this way as well.
2
16-cv-1783-BAS-AGS

1

During the delay before he saw these specialists, Blanchard contends that he suffered

2

“debilitating pain,” which made it so difficult to walk that he sometimes required a

3

wheelchair. (ECF No. 30, at 11, 13, 15.) For instance, on December 7, 2015, he asserts that

4

he “went ‘Man Down’ due to shaking, extreme joint pain in all extremities, extreme fatigue

5

and nausea and was taken to medical in a wheelchair[.]” (Id. at 15.) By the next month, he

6

claims that he was “distraught and hopeless over the daily pain, suffering and inability to

7

have his medical needs addressed.” (Id. at 17.)

8

Based on these asserted hardships, Blanchard ultimately sued the County of

9

San Diego, Global Medical Staffing, Dr. Gill, Dr. Purviance, and other doctors and officials

10

for violating his Eighth Amendment rights by denying and frustrating his access to

11

necessary medical care. He also accuses most of these defendants of medical malpractice.

12

II

13

COUNTY’S MOTION TO STRIKE THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

14

The County moves to strike the second amended complaint for being filed without

15

proper permission. Within certain time limits, plaintiffs may amend their complaints once

16

as a matter of course, as Blanchard did here with his first amended complaint. See Fed. R.

17

Civ. P. 15(a)(1); (ECF Nos. 1, 30). But any additional amendments require “the opposing

18

party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); see also id., Adv.

19

Comm. Notes, 2009 amend. (“The 21-day periods to amend once as a matter of course after

20

service of a responsive pleading or after service of a designated motion are not

21

cumulative.”). The County never gave written consent, and Blanchard failed to seek this

22

Court’s approval to file a second amended complaint. Thus, the County’s motion to strike

23

should be granted, leaving Blanchard’s properly-filed first amended complaint as the

24

operative pleading.

25

This ruling has no effect whatsoever on the analysis of the pending motions to

26

dismiss, because the first and second amended complaints are nearly identical. Blanchard’s

27

second amended complaint mainly added medical care he received since his release from

28

prison. (Compare ECF No. 30, at 21-22, with ECF No. 33, at 23-24, ¶¶173-176.) The latest
3
16-cv-1783-BAS-AGS

1

amendments did not address any of the alleged defects identified in the defendants’

2

dismissal motions.

3

III

4

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

5

A.

Legal Standard

6

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient facts to “state a

7

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

8

(citation omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The reviewing court must accept “all

9

factual allegations in the complaint as true and constru[e] them in the light most favorable

10

to the nonmoving party.” Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation

11

omitted). But “‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement’” will not suffice.

12

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted).

13

Pro se pleadings demand an especially charitable interpretation, but the court “may

14

not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled. Vague and

15

conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient to

16

withstand a motion to dismiss.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266,

17

268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted).

18

B.

Color of State Law

19

As a threshold matter, several defendants—Dr. Gill, Dr. Purviance, Dr. Katherine

20

Homann, and Global Medical Staffing, Inc.—move to dismiss on the ground that

21

Blanchard failed to adequately allege that they acted under color of state law, as required

22

to sustain a federal civil-rights action. (ECF No. 52, at 16-18); see Patel v. Kent School

23

Dist., 648 F.3d 965, 971 (9th Cir. 2011) (“To succeed on a [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 claim, a

24

plaintiff must show that . . . the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting

25

under color of state law[.]” (citation omitted)). “[A] private physician employed by the

26

state on a contract basis to provide medical services to inmates act[s] under color of state

27

law when treating a prisoner’s injuries.” Florer v. Congregation Pidyon Shevuyim, N.A.,

28

639 F.3d 916, 925 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 54 (1988)). Blanchard
4
16-cv-1783-BAS-AGS

1

alleges that the County contracts with Global Medical Staffing “to provide medical staffing

2

a[t] the San Diego County Sheriff’s Dept[.],” and that these doctors are GMS employees

3

who treated him as part of that contract. (ECF No. 30, at 2-3.)

4

Under the extremely forgiving standard the Court must apply at this early stage,

5

these pleadings sufficiently allege that the three doctors and GMS were acting under color

6

of state law. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 827 (7th Cir.

7

2009) (“[W]hen a person accepts employment with a private entity that contracts with the

8

state [for medical services to inmates], he understands that he is accepting the responsibility

9

to perform his duties in conformity with the Constitution.”); Maggio v. Shelton, No. 14-cv-

10

01682-SI, 2015 WL 5126567, at *6-7 (D. Or. Sept. 1, 2015) (collecting cases which hold

11

that “private physicians and medical entities may be considered state actors for purposes

12

of Section 1983 liability when a state has delegated its obligation to provide medical care

13

for inmates to those private entities, even in the absence of a contract”). Defendants also

14

contend that Blanchard’s allegations about their contractual relationships are simply wrong

15

(see ECF No. 52, at 17-18), but that is an argument that must wait until summary judgment.

16

C.

Constitutionally Inadequate Medical Care

17

The non-municipal defendants move to dismiss based on Blanchard’s failure to state

18

an Eighth Amendment claim of constitutionally inadequate medical care. (ECF No. 50-1,

19

at 3-5; ECF No. 52, at 11-16; ECF No. 59, at 5-6.) To state such a claim, a prisoner must

20

sufficiently allege two elements: (1) “the existence of a serious medical need,” and (2) the

21

prison official’s “deliberate indifference” to that need. Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060,

22

1066 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted).

23

1. Serious Medical Need

24

A serious medical need exists if, left untreated, it “‘could result in further significant

25

injury’ or cause ‘the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’” Colwell, 763 F.3d at 1066

26

(citations omitted). Thus, serious medical needs include ailments that “significantly affect[]

27

an individual’s daily activities” or cause “chronic and substantial pain.” Id. (citation

28

omitted). As discussed in the Background section above, Blanchard contends that he
5
16-cv-1783-BAS-AGS

1

suffered from rheumatoid arthritis and a torn meniscus that worsened into “debilitating

2

pain” as his requests for rheumatology and orthopedic referrals were denied or delayed,

3

sometimes requiring a wheelchair. (ECF No. 30, at 11, 13, 15.) Accepting all these facts as

4

true—as the Court must—Blanchard has adequately alleged a serious medical need.

5

2. Deliberate Indifference

6

Deliberate indifference is a formidable standard. “[I]solated occurrences of neglect,”

7

as well as “mere malpractice, or even gross negligence,” may be inexcusable, but they do

8

not amount to deliberate indifference. Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir.

9

1990) (citation omitted); see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (“Medical

10

malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a

11

prisoner.”). Rather, deliberate indifference requires at least criminal recklessness; the

12

prison official must “know[] of and disregard[] an excessive risk to inmate health or

13

safety[.]” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 839-40 (1994). The plaintiff “‘must show

14

that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the

15

circumstances’ and that the defendants ‘chose this course in conscious disregard of an

16

excessive risk to the plaintiff’s health.’” Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092

17

(9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). “[D]elaying access to medical care” can constitute

18

deliberate indifference, Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05, but “the delay must have caused

19

substantial harm.” Wood, 900 F.2d at 1335 (citation omitted).

20

(a) Dr. Gill

21

Despite this high bar, Blanchard makes out a plausible deliberate-indifference case

22

against Dr. Gill. Blanchard alleges that Dr. Gill told him that he would need to see a

23

rheumatology specialist in order to get “more advance[d] medications” to relieve his

24

arthritis. But when Blanchard asked for a referral, he claims that Dr. Gill responded, “You

25

will need to wait until you’re released [11 months later]. The Sheriff’s department will not

26

pay for a specialist.” (ECF No. 30, at 5-6.) In fact, this information was incorrect, as

27

evidenced by the fact that—after months of delay and before his release—Blanchard

28

eventually saw two specialists. (Id. at 14-15.) Perhaps Dr. Gill was mistaken. Or perhaps
6
16-cv-1783-BAS-AGS

1

he never said this, and Blanchard is mistaken. Those are questions for summary judgment

2

or trial. At this stage, the pleadings sufficiently allege that Dr. Gill knew that Blanchard

3

required a specialist’s treatment, refused to make the necessary referral, and provided

4

affirmatively false information that delayed Blanchard from obtaining the advanced

5

medications he required, causing substantial pain in the meantime. Alternatively, these

6

allegations could support the conclusion that Dr. Gill was enforcing a policy or custom of

7

discouraging specialist referrals, and that he did so based solely on financial concerns, not

8

his medical judgment. Either way, viewed in the light most favorable to Blanchard, these

9

facts support a finding of intentional or criminally reckless conduct. Thus, he states a claim

10

and Dr. Gill’s motion to dismiss should be denied.

11

(b) Dr. Purviance

12

Blanchard accuses Dr. Purviance of similar misconduct, but regarding his orthopedic

13

referral. He claims that he asked for such a referral because of “repeated issues related to

14

the torn meniscus,” including “swelling, pain and difficulty walking.” (ECF No. 30, at 10.)

15

But he states that Dr. Purviance refused under the false premise that the “Sheriff’s

16

Department would not approve an orthopedic referral[.]” (Id.) The main difference between

17

the facts alleged against Dr. Gill and Dr. Purviance is the length of delay. After Dr. Gill

18

purportedly refused to make a rheumatology referral, it took three months before Blanchard

19

saw a rheumatologist. (Id. at 5, 14.) But the delay was only six weeks between

20

Dr. Purviance’s alleged refusal to make an orthopedic referral and Blanchard’s first

21

orthopedic appointment. (Id. at 10, 15.) A six-week delay for an orthopedic referral may

22

be reasonable, but the Court cannot resolve that factual dispute yet. Viewed in the light

23

most favorable to Blanchard, these allegations support a finding that Dr. Purviance was

24

deliberately indifferent in the same manner as Dr. Gill, and that her knowing disregard of

25

Blanchard’s serious medical condition resulted in extra weeks of debilitating pain. So,

26

Dr. Purviance’s motion to dismiss should be denied, but she too will have a later

27

opportunity to contest these allegations.

28
7
16-cv-1783-BAS-AGS

1

(c) Dr. Homann

2

It is unclear why Blanchard named Dr. Katherine Homann as a defendant. He states

3

that on October 20, 2015, she “performed a thorough examination,” prescribed an anti-

4

inflammatory for his pain, and indicated that she had completed a rheumatology referral.

5

(ECF No. 30, at 10.) On November 10, 2015, she again “performed a detail[ed]

6

examination and explained that there was an RH [rheumatology] appointment scheduled

7

in about one week and the orthopedic would be about 6 weeks.” (Id. at 11.) Blanchard does

8

not allege that any of these statements were lies or that Dr. Homann did anything to delay

9

his therapy; he merely contends that it took somewhat longer to see the specialists than she

10

stated. Because Blanchard has not alleged that Dr. Homann knowingly delayed his

11

treatment, her motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim should be granted.

12

(d) Dr. Serra

13

Dr. John Serra is named as a defendant, but Blanchard makes absolutely no

14

allegations of any kind against him. In fact, the name “Serra” appears only once in the first

15

amended complaint, but that appears to be a typographical error, in which his last name

16

was appended onto Dr. Homann’s. (See ECF No. 30, at 3 (“Dr. Katherine Homann Serra

17

at all relevant times was acting under color of law.”).) Thus, his motion to dismiss should

18

be granted.

19

(e) Global Medical Staffing, Inc.

20

Blanchard claims that Global Medical Staffing “has a policy or custom of restricting,

21

if not outright denying referrals to specialists when such care is expensive,” that Dr. Gill

22

and Dr. Purviance were following that policy when they denied him specialist referrals,

23

and that GMS followed that policy by allegedly delaying or canceling his appointments,

24

failing to promptly provide medical records, and failing to ensure uninterrupted medication

25

access. (ECF No. 30, at 23, 26, 28-32.) Blanchard’s allegations of occasional missed

26

appointments and missed medications amount to “isolated occurrences of neglect,” which

27

do not constitute deliberate indifference. See Wood, 900 F.2d at 1334 (citation omitted).

28

And his claim that GMS has a “policy or custom of restricting” referrals to expensive
8
16-cv-1783-BAS-AGS

1

specialists is merely a “‘naked assertion’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” See

2

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted); (ECF No. 30, at 23). Thus, GMS’s motion to

3

dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim should be granted.

4

(f) Deputy Buchanan and Sergeant Weishaar

5

Finally, Blanchard alleges that two prison officials—Deputy David Buchanan2 and

6

Sergeant Jeffery Weishaar—were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by denying

7

him a wheelchair on one occasion. On November 23, 2015, Blanchard was slow to respond

8

to a doctor call “due to his debilitated state.” (ECF No. 30, at 13.) According to Blanchard,

9

as he limped forward, he asked Deputy Buchanan, “[M]ay I have a wheelchair?” Not only

10

was the request denied, but Blanchard claims that the deputy told the other medical call

11

inmates, “Let ‘Shuffles’ here lead the pack since he is the slowest[.]” (Id.) Three days later,

12

Blanchard submitted a grievance about this incident, which Sergeant Weishaar purportedly

13

rejected. (Id. at 14.)

14

Even assuming all these facts as true, they do not make out a claim of deliberate

15

indifference. To meet that high standard, “the official must both be aware of facts from

16

which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he

17

must also draw the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Blanchard does not contend that

18

these prison officials knew how serious his medical condition was, or that their conduct

19

might pose an excessive risk to his health or safety. Also, the only allegation against

20

Sergeant Weishaar is that he later denied Blanchard’s grievance; there is no evidence he

21

even knew of this incident when it happened. Sergeant Weishaar’s actions—days

22

afterwards—could not have caused Blanchard any physical harm on this occasion. The

23

prison officials’ motion to dismiss, therefore, should be granted.

24
25
26
27
28

The parties spell defendant Buchanan’s name variously as “Buchanan” or
“Buchannan.” (See, e.g., ECF No. 30, at 3, 13; ECF No. 50-1, at 1.) The Court will refer to
his last name consistently as “Buchanan,” which is the way it is captioned and initially
mentioned in the first amended complaint. (See ECF No. 30, at 1, 3.)
2

9
16-cv-1783-BAS-AGS

1

D.

Municipal Federal Civil-Rights Claim

2

The County of San Diego argues that Blanchard has not alleged a plausible federal

3

civil-rights claim against it. To state such a municipal-liability claim, a plaintiff must

4

establish that the constitutional violation resulted from “a municipal policy or custom,” or

5

from the municipality’s “deliberate indifference” to an inadequate training program. City

6

of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385, 392 (1989); see also Monell v. New York City Dept.

7

of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) (holding that local governments may be liable

8

under § 1983 for constitutional injuries resulting from that “government’s policy or

9

custom”).

10

In the light most favorable to Blanchard, he alleged that two doctors involved in

11

treating inmates told him that the Sheriff’s Department has a policy or custom of denying

12

specialist visits.3 (ECF No. 30, at 6, 10.) And he asserts that both these doctors in fact

13

denied his referral requests—suggesting they were following that policy or custom. These

14

claims are further buttressed by the fact that he allegedly had to endure extra weeks or

15

months of excruciating pain before the Sheriff’s Department provided those specialist

16

appointments. While the County may ultimately prove that these allegations are unfounded,

17

Blanchard has adequately stated a claim of municipal liability.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

One view of these allegations would be that the doctors told the truth about the
County’s custom of denying specialist referrals, and they consciously chose to follow that
custom against their medical judgment. Another interpretation—which tends to implicate
the doctors, but exonerate the County—might be that they were lying, and that they
fabricated this policy or custom in order to delay Blanchard’s treatment. Blanchard need
not settle on a single theory, as he may pursue inconsistent arguments. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(d)(2) (“A party may set out 2 or more statements of a claim . . . alternatively or
hypothetically” and the complaint is “sufficient if any one of them is sufficient.”); cf.
Molsbergen v. United States, 757 F.2d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 1985) (rejecting “a policy
which permits one claim to be invoked as an admission against an alternative or
inconsistent claim” for motion-to-dismiss purposes); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(3) (“A party may
state as many separate claims or defenses as it has, regardless of consistency.”).
10
16-cv-1783-BAS-AGS

1

E.

Medical Malpractice Claim

2

Curiously, Dr. Serra is the only defendant who moves to dismiss Blanchard’s

3

medical malpractice claim. (See ECF No. 59-1, at 2, 6.) Because Dr. Serra’s name does not

4

appear anywhere in the body of the first amended complaint (except for the previously-

5

noted typographical error), his motion to dismiss should be granted as to this claim as well.

6

Also, since Deputy Buchanan and Sergeant Weishaar are not mentioned in this claim (see

7

ECF No. 30, at 34-43), they need not move to dismiss it. But the malpractice claim should

8

remain against the other defendants—Dr. Gill, Dr. Purviance, Dr. Homann, Global Medical

9

Staffing, and the County of San Diego.

10

F.

Injunctive Relief

11

Blanchard seeks a wide-ranging injunction aimed at preventing further “deliberate

12

indifference to inmates[’] medical needs,” which defendants oppose. Blanchard’s “claims

13

for injunctive relief are moot because [he] has been released from custody.” See Jones v.

14

Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031 (9th Cir. 2015); (ECF No. 30, at 42, ¶292 (referencing

15

release from custody)). So, his injunctive-relief claim must fail.

16

G.

Punitive Damages

17

Although some defendants move to dismiss Blanchard’s punitive-damages claim

18

(ECF No. 52, at 19; ECF No. 59-1, at 7), the Supreme Court has held that “a jury may be

19

permitted to assess punitive damages in an action under § 1983 when the defendant’s

20

conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or

21

callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.” Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S.

22

30, 88 (1983). Such punitive damages are available “even when the underlying standard of

23

liability for compensatory damages is one of recklessness.” Id. Thus, Blanchard should be

24

allowed to seek punitive damages against any defendant against whom he has adequately

25

stated a deliberate-indifference claim.

26

H.

Opportunity to Amend

27

A pro se plaintiff is entitled to an “opportunity to amend the complaint to overcome

28

[any] deficiency unless it clearly appears from the complaint that the deficiency cannot be
11
16-cv-1783-BAS-AGS

1

overcome by amendment.” James v. Giles, 221 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations

2

omitted). Blanchard has already drafted three versions of this complaint (see ECF Nos. 1,

3

30, 33), and he filed the first amendment partly to “address the deficiencies outlined” in

4

the County’s initial motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 21, at 1-2.) But this is the first time the

5

Court has notified Blanchard of any legal deficiencies in his complaint, so he should be

6

given one last opportunity to amend it.

7

IV

8

CONCLUSION

9
10
11

This Court recommends that:
1. Defendant County of San Diego’s motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint (ECF No. 31) be GRANTED as to the injunctive-relief claim
only and otherwise DENIED;

12
13

2. Defendant County of San Diego’s motion to strike the second amended
complaint (ECF No. 35) be GRANTED;

14
15

3. Defendant Weishaar and Buchanan’s motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint (ECF No. 50) be GRANTED;

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

4. The motion to dismiss the first amended complaint filed by defendants
Global Medical Staffing, Dr. Gill, Dr. Purviance, and Dr. Homann (ECF
No. 52) be GRANTED as to the injunctive-relief claim, GRANTED as to
the Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Homann and Global Medical
Staffing only, DENIED as to the medical-malpractice claim, and
otherwise DENIED;
5. Defendant Dr. Serra’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint (ECF
No. 59) be GRANTED; and
6. If the District Judge adopts or modifies this report, Blanchard shall have
14 days from that order to file a third amended complaint to address the
identified deficiencies. If he chooses not to file a third amended complaint,
the case will proceed on the first amended complaint, but only as to the
remaining defendants and claims.

27
28
12
16-cv-1783-BAS-AGS

1

Upon being served with a copy of this report, each party has 14 days to file any

2

objections. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A party may respond to any such objection within

3

14 days of being served with it. See id.

4

Dated: August 8, 2017

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
16-cv-1783-BAS-AGS