Wheeler v. Marengo et al
Filing
29
ORDER (1) Adopting Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 24 ); (2) Granting Defendants' Motoin to Dismiss (Doc. No. 21 ); and (3) Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. No. 28 ). Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 4/1/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jrm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KENNETH WHEELER,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
Case No.: 18-CV-360-AJB(WVG)
ORDER:
v.
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 24);
K. MARENGO et al.,
Defendants.
15
(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 21);
AND
16
17
18
(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. No. 28)
19
20
On April 29, 2019, Plaintiff Kenneth Wheeler (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner
21
proceeding pro se, filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) with this Court alleging
22
prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (FAC,
23
Doc. No. 20.) Before the Court are Defendants K. Marengo, M. Dominguez, and A. Lay’s
24
(“Defendants”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC. (Doc. No. 21.) Magistrate Judge
25
William V. Gallo filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Court
26
grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and dismiss the FAC with prejudice. (Doc. No. 24.)
27
Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend. (Doc. No. 28.) For the reasons set forth below,
28
the Court: (1) ADOPTS the R&R, (2) GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and (3)
1
18-CV-360-AJB(WVG)
1
DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend.
2
I.
BACKGROUND
3
In 2016, Plaintiff was housed at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility
4
(‟RJD”) in San Diego, California. Plaintiff claims on October 24, 2016, he suffered a
5
serious injury to his knee, was transported by ambulance to RJD’s medical facilities, and
6
his leg was placed in a cast. (FAC at 3.) While at the medical facility, Plaintiff received a
7
Comprehensive Accommodation Chrono (“Chrono”) requesting a lower-level bunk bed.
8
(Id. at 9.) When he returned to his housing unit with crutches and “in horrific pain,”
9
Plaintiff alleges he informed Defendant Marengo of the Chrono. Defendant Marengo told
10
Plaintiff a lower bunk bed would be provided, but Defendant Marengo’s shift ended
11
without Plaintiff receiving the lower bunk accommodation. (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff
12
contends Defendant Marengo failed to inform subsequent officers of the lower bunk
13
request. (Id.)
14
Plaintiff alleges he laid back on the floor because he could not climb to the top bunk
15
and the bottom bunk was occupied by another inmate. (Id.) Defendant Dominguez then
16
began the shift following Defendant Marengo. (Id.) Plaintiff states when Defendant
17
Dominguez asked why Plaintiff was lying on the floor of his cell, Plaintiff told him he
18
could not mount the top bunk, he asked for a bottom bunk, and he informed Defendant
19
Dominguez of his lower bunk Chrono. (Id.) However, Dominguez told Plaintiff nothing
20
could be done until the next day. (Id.)
21
The next day, Defendant Lay began the shift following Defendant Dominguez’s
22
shift. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges he explained to Defendant Lay he had a lower bunk Chrono,
23
which could also be found on the computer system. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant Lay
24
refused to give Plaintiff a lower bunk, refused to call command staff or medical staff, and
25
ordered Plaintiff to return to the top bunk. (Id.) Plaintiff contends he was without a lower
26
bunk from 4:00 p.m. on October 24, 2016 until 9:00 p.m. on October 25, 2016—or for
27
approximately twenty-nine hours. (Id.)
28
Based on these facts, Plaintiff alleges Defendants “disregarded [his] injury and
2
18-CV-360-AJB(WVG)
1
medical condition[,] forcing [him] to remain on the floor and/or expecting [him] to get on
2
the top bunk, disregarding the risk to [his] safety.” He also alleges Defendants ignored the
3
instructions of his treating physician. Plaintiff asserts § 1983 violations of the Eighth
4
Amendment based on Defendants’ alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical
5
needs.
6
II.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
7
On February 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed his first Complaint. (Doc. No. 1.) On June 22,
8
2018, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint, and the Magistrate Judge issued an
9
R&R recommending the Court grant in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss and to dismiss
10
the Complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. Nos. 11, 15.) The Magistrate Judge concluded
11
Plaintiff failed to allege any damages or additional injury caused by Defendants’ alleged
12
denial of a lower bunk. (Doc. No. 15 at 7–8.) The Magistrate Judge also determined
13
Plaintiff failed to specify whether Defendants were aware of the lower bunk requirement,
14
and if aware, how each Defendant was provided notice. (Id.) On March 22, 2019, the Court
15
adopted the R&R in its entirety, and granted Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint. (Doc.
16
No. 19.)
17
On April 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed his FAC. (FAC, Doc. No. 20.) Defendants filed a
18
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 21.) On November 13, 2019, the
19
Magistrate Judge issued another R&R recommending dismissal of the action, but this time,
20
with prejudice. (Doc. No. 24.) On December 23, 2019, Plaintiff moved for an extension of
21
time to respond to the R&R, which was granted by the Court. (Doc. No. 25–26.) On
22
February 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss his FAC without prejudice, and with
23
leave to amend his FAC. (Doc. No. 28.)
24
III.
LEGAL STANDARD
25
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district
26
judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The
27
district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to
28
which objection is made[,]” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
3
18-CV-360-AJB(WVG)
1
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
2
United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of
3
timely objection(s), the court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
4
of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory
5
committee’s note to 1983 amendment; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
6
(9th Cir. 2003).
7
IV.
DISCUSSION
8
A.
9
As a preliminary matter, the Magistrate Judge’s R&R recommends dismissal of this
10
entire action with prejudice. (Doc. No. 24.) Instead of filing objections to the Magistrate
11
Judge’s R&R despite requesting an extension of time to do so, Plaintiff filed a motion
12
styled as a “motion to dismiss without prejudice with leave to amend First Amended
13
Complaint.” (Doc. No. 28.) Plaintiff’s motion only seeks leave to amend and does not
14
contain objections to any other part of the R&R. Thus, liberally interpreting Plaintiff’s
15
motion, and with consideration to the pending motion to dismiss and R&R, the Court will
16
construe Plaintiff’s motion as an objection to the R&R to the extent the R&R recommends
17
dismissal with prejudice. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend
18
B.
19
Next, the Court turns to whether Plaintiff has adequately pleaded an Eighth
20
Amendment claim. To allege an Eighth Amendment claim that prison officials failed to
21
attend to serious medical needs, a plaintiff must show that the lack of response exhibits
22
“deliberate indifference.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). The two-
23
part test for “deliberate indifference” requires the plaintiff to show: (1) “a ‘serious medical
24
need’ by demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further
25
significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the
26
defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096.
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claim
27
Firstly, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded Plaintiff failed to satisfy the first
28
prong because “[a]lthough Plaintiff references being in pain, he fails to identify how his
4
18-CV-360-AJB(WVG)
1
discomfort was related to not having a lower bunk.” (Doc. No. 24 at 7.) Specifically, the
2
pain Plaintiff referenced in his FAC was associated with the original condition which
3
resulted in his leg being placed into a cast, and not pain as a result of alleged
4
unconstitutional actions taken by Defendants. (Id.) Plaintiff has not provided any facts
5
showing Defendants’ alleged deliberate indifference resulted in further significant injury
6
or unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. (Id. at 8.)
7
Secondly, the Magistrate Judge also correctly determined Plaintiff failed to satisfy
8
the second prong. (Id. at 7.) Although Plaintiff alleged each of Defendants were on notice
9
of his Chrono outlining his medical need for a bottom bunk, Plaintiff was ultimately
10
granted a bottom bunk after twenty-nine hours. (Id. at 8.) Thus, Defendants did not ignore
11
the instructions of Plaintiff’s treating physician; rather, they merely slightly delayed
12
following the instructions. (Id.); see Hernandez v. Denton, 861 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir.
13
1988), vacated on other grounds, 493 U.S. 801 (1989) (holding that mattress deprivation
14
“for only one night [was] insufficient to state an eighth amendment violation”).
15
Seeing no objections from Plaintiff to these determinations, the Court holds that the
16
Magistrate Judge’s conclusion is well-reasoned, thorough, and containing no clear error.
17
Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead an Eighth Amendment violation.
18
C.
19
Lastly, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of this action with prejudice.
20
(Doc. No. 24 at 9.) The Magistrate Judge pointed out Plaintiff has already been afforded
21
an opportunity to amend the deficiencies in the original Complaint with specific
22
instructions from the Court. (Id.) Plaintiff, on the other hand, urges that the Court provide
23
him with an additional opportunity to amend his Complaint. (Doc. No. 28.) Plaintiff
24
explains he was a patient in the Enhanced Outpatient (EOP) building, and was administered
25
medication to help treat his mental illness. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff is now on a lower dosage of
26
treatment, “mentally stabilized,” and can now adequately recall events with due diligence.
27
(Id.)
28
Leave to Amend
“A district court acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend when amendment
5
18-CV-360-AJB(WVG)
1
would be futile, when it would cause undue prejudice to the defendant, or when it is sought
2
in bad faith.” Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725–26 (9th Cir. 2000).
3
Although Plaintiff now sufficiently alleges that each Defendant knew about his medical
4
Chrono outlining his need for a bottom bunk, he has not alleged any further harm that
5
resulted from the Defendants’ delay in accommodating the Chrono. Neither has Plaintiff
6
adequately alleged Defendants’ actions were deliberately indifferent because he was
7
eventually provided a bottom bunk only after a slight delay. Plaintiff complains Defendants
8
forced him to sleep on the floor for one night, but without additional injury, this does not
9
rise to the level of inflicting “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” required for an
10
Eighth Amendment violation. See Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096.
11
Furthermore, even though Plaintiff has already been provided with an opportunity
12
to amend, Plaintiff still does not clarify how he intends to cure the deficiencies in his
13
Complaint. He states he can better structure his arguments to avoid pleading legal
14
conclusions, but Plaintiff does not explain what additional facts he now recalls that will
15
save his claim. Therefore, in light of Plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate significant injury
16
from having to sleep on the floor for one night, or deliberate indifference, the Court holds
17
that any amendment would be futile. See Hartmann v. CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th
18
Cir. 2013) (“A district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.”).
19
Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection, and DENIES Plaintiff’s
20
motion for leave to amend his First Amended Complaint.
21
V.
CONCLUSION
22
Based on the foregoing, the Court (1) ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, (2)
23
GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (3) DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to
24
amend, and (4) DISMISSES Plaintiff’s FAC WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The
25
Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to close the case.
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
27
28
6
18-CV-360-AJB(WVG)
1
Dated: April 1, 2020
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
18-CV-360-AJB(WVG)
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?