Perez v. Department of Corrections

Filing 25

Order Coupled with Report and Recommendation re 19 Motion to Amend/Correct Amend Complaint; Request for Access to Legal Law Library and No Retaliate filed by Vicente G Perez, 18 Motion to Dismiss filed by Department of Corrections. The court will DENY Plaintiff's motion to amend his Second Amended Complaint. The undersigned recommends that the Second Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joaquin V.E. Manibusan, Jr on 9/10/2014. (fad, )

1
2
3
4
5

DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM

6

TERRITORY OF GUAM

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

VICENTE G. PEREZ,

) CIVIL CASE NO. 13-00013
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
ORDER COUPLED WITH
)
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.
) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
)
Defendants.
)
)
______________________________________ )
Vicente G. Perez, plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se herein, filed a complaint on May

15

17, 2013 against the Department of Corrections (DOC). Therein, he alleged lack of proper

16

medical attention for a wrist injury and sought $1.5 Million Dollars in damages for personal

17

injury under a 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights action. On July 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed an

18

Amendment to his complaint and sought $3.5 Million Dollars in damages for a Negligent

19

Infliction of Mental and Emotional Distress Claim. On August 21, 2013, Plaintiff amended his

20

complaint to clarify that he was seeking $1.5 Million dollars in punitive damages and $3.5

21

Million Dollars for his Negligent Infliction of Mental and Emotional Distress Claim. On

22

September 28, 2013, Defendant Department of Corrections filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

23

complaint. On September 30, 2013, Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint and included a

24

copy of the proposed Amended Complaint in Attachment No. 7. In the proposed Amended

25

Complaint, he named as additional defendants Dr. Raj Saad, M.D., Lt. Allen Borja, Dr. Andrea

26

M. S. Leitheiser (Clinical Administrator), Major Francisco Crisostomo, and Director Jose A.

27

San Agustin. On October 7, 2013, the Defendant Department of Corrections filed an opposition

28

to the Plaintiff’s motion to amend. On August 5, 2014, Defendant Department of Correction’s

1

motion to dismiss was referred to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation.

2
3

DISCUSSION
On May 17, 2013, Plaintiff, a DOC inmate housed in the Federal Detention Facility

4

filed a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming DOC as the defendant. (ECF No. 1.) His

5

complaint, which took the form of a letter and attached exhibits, alleged that, since being taken

6

into custody in DOC, he had not received proper medical and dental treatment. Specifically, he

7

broke his wrist and DOC officials gave him medication and a bandage but did not provide him

8

with a splint or assign him a lower bunk for sleeping. Plaintiff sought damages in the amount of

9

$1.5 million.

10

On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a letter requesting an amendment to his original

11

complaint. His letter made reference to the original complaint and included a new claim for

12

Negligent Infliction of Mental & Emotional Distress. On July 30, 2013, the Court docketed

13

Plaintiff’s letter as an Amended Complaint against the Department of Corrections. (ECF No.

14

8.) In his Amended Complaint, Perez sought damages in the amount of $3.5 million for the new

15

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress claim. This amendment would therefore be

16

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

17

On August 11, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a letter to the court indicating that his previous

18

amendment contained an error. (ECF No. 11.) On August 21, 2013, the Clerk of Court stamped

19

the letter as being “received” and thereafter filed it as an Amended Complaint. In his letter,

20

Plaintiff clarified that he was seeking punitive damages in the amount of $1.5 million and

21

damages in the amount of $3.5 million for Negligent Infliction of Mental and Emotional

22

Distress. The letter was Plaintiff’s second attempt to amend his complaint. For purposes of the

23

discussion herein, the court will reference the August 21, 2013 filing as Plaintiff’s Second

24

Amended Complaint.

25

Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend his Second Amended Complaint to add more

26

claims and include as additional defendants: Dr. Raj Saad, M.D., Lt. Allen Borja, Dr. Andrea M.

27

S. Leitheiser (Clinical Administrator), Major Francisco Crisostomo, and Director Jose A. San

28

Agustin. Currently, the only named Defendant in the Amended Complaint is the Department of
Page -2-

1

Corrections. In his motion, Plaintiff provides a copy of the proposed amended Complaint in

2

Attachment 7. (See ECF 19-7).

3

Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint provides as follows:

4

First, Plaintiff states that his suit is based upon a claim for denial of necessary and

5

adequate medical care and treatment. Plaintiff also states that he brings an action for declaratory

6

and injunctive relief and demands a jury trial. Plaintiff divides his proposed amended complaint

7

into five categories. He provides a preliminary statement, allegations regarding jurisdiction,

8

allegations as to the facts, allegations as to his legal claims, and a claim for relief. The proposed

9

amended complaint is summarized below.

10
11

Preliminary Statement
Paragraph 1 alleges that Plaintiff has been denied access to adequate and competent

12

medical treatment, care, and facilities; that the Department of Corrections officials and their

13

employees have failed and refused to transport him to medical appointments with his physician;

14

failed and refused to carry out and/or complete his physicians’s treatment plans, and orders;

15

failed and refused to deliver prescribed medications, medical equipment and treatment kits.

16

Plaintiff alleges these acts to be knowing, deliberate, and intentional on the part of DOC.

17

Jurisdiction

18

Paragraph 2 addresses the jurisdiction of the court.

19

Paragraph 3 describes the incarceration status of Plaintiff.

20

Paragraph 4 alleges Defendants Raja Saad, Lt. A. Borja, Major Crisostomo, Clinical

21

Administrator Andrea Leitheiser, and Director Jose A. San Agustin are responsible for the

22

administration, operation, and supervision of the Department of Corrections, and promulgation

23

of rules and regulations. Defendants are sued individually and in their official capacities.

24

Paragraph 5 alleges Defendant Jose A. San Agustin (and responsible parties involved)

25

“is... the Administrator of the Department of Corrections” and is responsible for the

26

administration, operation, and supervision of DOC staff and facilities, the custody and control of

27

DOC inmates and the promulgation and enforcement of rules, regulations, and policies and

28

practices relevant thereto. Defendants are sued in their individual and official capacities.
Page -3-

1

Paragraph 6 alleges that Defendants Saad and Leitheiser are the Medical Director and

2

Clinical Administrator respectively at DOC. Said Defendants are sued individually and in their

3

official capacities.

4

Facts

5
6

Paragraph 7 alleges Plaintiff was incarcerated at DOC pursuant to a criminal proceeding
in the District Court of Guam.

7

Paragraph 8 alleges Plaintiff was not provided a medical examination upon entry into

8

DOC and that he provided DOC with detailed history of his injuries, medical treatment, and

9

care.

10

Paragraph 9 alleges Plaintiff was suffering from the residual affects of an accidental fall

11

from an attempt to unmount from his upper bunk and from arthritis, including repeated and

12

continuing pain and suffering from acquired injury (fracture), which was later confirmed by an

13

x-ray.

14
15
16

Paragraph 10 alleges that as of March, 2013, Plaintiff was in need of specialized medical
treatment and care to monitor his symptoms and alleviate discomfort.
Paragraph 11 alleges that Plaintiff was being examined on a daily basis from his entry

17

into DOC in March until his hospitalization on May 3, 2013. While at GMH, he was under the

18

care of Dr. Castro.

19
20
21

Paragraph 12 alleges that following his return to DOC on May 8, 2013, Plaintiff was not
seen and treated repeatedly by DOC medical personnel.
Paragraph 13 alleges that Plaintiff was transported on April 15, 2013 to Dr. Saad for an

22

examination. Dr. Saad recommended that DOC personnel monitor Plaintiff for neck, wrist,

23

injuries, and arthritis plus follow up and for medication to lessen Plaintiff’s continuing pain and

24

discomfort.

25
26
27
28

Paragraph 14 alleges that following the aforementioned visit, Plaintiff was not seen by
another doctor until June 28, 2013.
Paragraph 15 alleges that from June 28, 2013 to September 15, 2013, Plaintiff continued
to report and indicate pain in the neck, wrist, back, and body almost daily, however, Plaintiff’s
Page -4-

1

needs for specialized care were ignored and/or refused by Defendants and their employees;

2

Plaintiff was denied treatment and/or medications and/or sterilized equipment that were

3

prescribed for him and he was taunted and/or accused of “malingering” by Dr. Saad, medical

4

staff, including Defendants and/or their employees.

5

Paragraph 16 alleges that finally, on or about July 10, 2013, Plaintiff was examined by

6

Dr. Castro, Glenn Cunningham, a specialist, and Plaintiff was hospitalized for swollen neck

7

which was choking him and was thus treated for acute infection on the neck.

8
9
10
11

Paragraph 17 alleges that on May 8, 2013, Dr. Castro made specific recommendations to
DOC medical personnel for Plaintiff’s treatment and care. A copy of this letter from Plaintiff’s
physician is attached to the proposed amended complaint.
Paragraph 18 alleges that Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that

12

the Defendants and their employees have taken virtually no actions to carry out the

13

recommendations contained in the aforementioned letter from Plaintiff’s physician and/or that

14

any such actions have been and will be so delayed as to aggravate Plaintiff’s medical problems.

15

Paragraph 19 alleges that Plaintiff has initiated and/or filed grievances arising from the

16

foregoing, all of which have been denied and/or ignored by the Defendants and their employees.

17

Legal Claims

18

Paragraph 20 alleges that Defendants, with knowledge of Plaintiff’s medical needs,

19

and/or with deliberate indifference to such medical needs, have acted or failed to act in such a

20

way as to deprive Plaintiff of necessary and adequate medical care, thereby endangering the

21

Plaintiff’s health and well being. Such act and omissions of the Defendants allegedly violate

22

rights secured to the Plaintiff under the Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the

23

United States Constitution.

24

Paragraph 21 alleges that Defendants, with knowledge of Plaintiff’s medical needs,

25

and/or with deliberate indifference to such medical needs, have acted or failed to act in such a

26

way as to prevent Plaintiff from obtaining needed medical treatment and care from reaching the

27

Plaintiff, thereby endangering the Plaintiff’s health and well-being. Such acts and omissions of

28

the Defendants violate rights secured to the Plaintiff under the Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and
Page -5-

1
2

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Paragraph 22 alleges that Defendants, with knowledge of Plaintiff’s medical needs, have

3

a duty under the Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to provide needed medical

4

care to inmates of DOC in conformity with the standard for delivery care of such medical care in

5

the Territory of Guam as a whole.

6

Paragraph 23 alleges that Defendants, with knowledge of Plaintiff’s medical needs,

7

and/or with deliberate indifference to such medical needs, have acted or failed to act in such a

8

way as to provide medical care in conformity with the standard delivery of such medical care in

9

the Territory of Guam as a whole and have in fact provided medical care which does not meet

10

such standards thereby endangering the Plaintiff’s health and well being in violation of rights

11

secured to the Plaintiff under the Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the

12

United States Constitution.

13

Paragraph 24 alleges that Defendants, knowing of the medical needs of Plaintiff, and

14

knowing also of the inadequacies and deficiencies in the medical facilities staffing and

15

procedures at DOC have a duty under the Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, to

16

establish and implement policies, practices and procedures designed to assure that Plaintiff

17

receives medical care and treatment in conformity with the standards for delivery of such

18

medical care and treatment in the Territory of Guam as a whole.

19

Paragraph 25 alleges that Defendants, knowing of the medical needs of Plaintiff, and

20

with deliberate indifference to the inadequacies and deficiencies in the medical facilities,

21

staffing and procedures at DOC, have failed and neglected to establish and implement policies,

22

practices and procedures designed to assure that Plaintiff receive medical treatment and care at

23

the standards therefore in the Territory of Guam as a whole, or have adopted policies, practices,

24

and procedures which Defendants knew would be ineffective in delivering medical treatment

25

and care at such standard, thereby endangering the Plaintiff’s health and well being in violation

26

of rights secured to Plaintiff by the Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the

27

United States Constitution.

28

Paragraph 26 alleges that Defendants, knowing of Plaintiff’s medical needs have a duty
Page -6-

1

under the Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to instruct, supervise, and train their

2

employees and agents to assure delivery of medical care to Plaintiff which is consistent with the

3

standards of medical care in the Territory of Guam as a whole.

4

Paragraph 27 alleges that Defendants, knowing of the medical needs of Plaintiff, and

5

with deliberate indifference to such needs, have failed to instruct, supervise, and train their

6

employees and agents in such manner as to assure the delivery of medical care to Plaintiff which

7

is consistent with the standard of medical care in the Territory of Guam as a whole, thereby

8

endangering the Plaintiff’s health and well being in violation of rights secured to plaintiff by the

9

Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

10
11

Paragraph 28 alleges that the Defendants actions and/or omissions were negligent and/or
reckless/or intentional.

12

Paragraph 29 alleges that the Defendants actions and/or omissions were committed

13

under color of law and/or pursuant to policies, customs, practices, rules, regulations, or of law

14

ordinances, statutes and/or usages of the Territory of Guam and/or DOC.

15

Paragraph 30 alleges that Plaintiff has no adequate and sufficient remedy at law with

16

which to address the wrongs alleged herein and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from

17

the conduct of Defendants unless he is granted the equitable relief prayed for herein.

18

Paragraph 31 alleges that as a direct and approximate result of the above-described

19

actions and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered damages in the amounts of $200,000

20

(each Defendant) exclusive of interest and costs, the exact amounts of which will be proven at

21

trial.

22

Relief

23

1. The court determine and enter judgment declaring that the acts and omissions of the

24

Defendants as set forth above violate rights secured to Plaintiff by the Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and

25

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

26

2. The court issue a temporary and permanent injunction;

27

(a) Enjoining the Defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office from

28

providing medical care and treatment to Plaintiff that is inconsistent with the
Page -7-

1

standard of medical care and treatment in the Territory of Guam as a whole;

2

(b) Enjoining the Defendants, their employees, agents and successors in office from

3

refusing to provide and/or delaying provision of necessary medical treatment and

4

care to Plaintiff within the DOC or elsewhere;

5

(c) Enjoining the Defendants and their successors in office from failing to instruct,

6

supervise, and train their employees and agents in such a manner as to assume

7

the delivery of medical treatment and care to Plaintiff which is consistent with

8

the standard of medical care in the Territory of Guam as a whole;

9

3. That the court establish a panel of independent medical experts to regularly evaluate

10

the delivery of medical treatment and care at DOC and insure the compliance of Defendants and

11

their successors in office with the court’s orders herein;

12

4. $1,000,000 in general damages.

13

5. $1,000,000 in punitive damages

14

6. $1,000,000 for negligent infliction of mental & emotional distress

15

7. Pay for costs and fees, including reasonable attorney’s fees

16

8. That the court grant such further and additional relief which may be proper.

17

Defendant DOC opposes Plaintiff’s motion to amend his Second Amended Complaint.

18

In its opposition, Defendant cites to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 15

19

provides that a party may amend his original pleading once as a matter of course within certain

20

time constraints, and thereafter only with the opposing party’s written consent or with the

21

court’s permission, which shall be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

22

15(a)(2). In deciding whether justice requires a court to grant leave to amend, the court

23

considers five factors: (1) undue delay by the Plaintiff; (2) dilatory motive or bad faith on the

24

part of the Plaintiff; (3) whether the Plaintiff has previously amended his complaint and failed to

25

cure its deficiencies; (4) undue prejudice to the opposing party; and (5) futility of the proposed

26

amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962).

27

“[L]leave to amend need not be granted if it ‘constitutes an exercise in futility.’ ”

28

Hardman v. Gov’t of Guam, slip. op., Civil No. 10-00010, 2011 WL 4901162, *3 (D. Guam
Page -8-

1

Oct. 14, 2011) (quoting Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir.

2

1989), and Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293

3

(9th Cir.) (holding that, while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court need not grant

4

leave for futile amendments), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 822, 104 S. Ct. 88, 78 L. Ed. 2d 96 (1983)).

5

“[T]he court has particularly broad discretion to deny leave to amend if a plaintiff has previously

6

amended the complaint.” Hardman, 2011 WL 4901162, *3 (citing Ascon Props., Inc., 866 F.2d

7

at 1160).
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s amendment1 would be futile and therefore should be

8
9

denied. In support thereof, Defendant cites to the Hardman case, supra. In Hardman, the

10

plaintiff brought 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against government of Guam officials in their official

11

capacities. The defendant government moved to dismiss the first amended complaint and the

12

plaintiff opposed or alternatively moved to amend. The court dismissed and, in addition, denied

13

the plaintiff leave to amend because “[g]ranting Plaintiff leave to amend her claim against the

14

[government] officers in their official capacities would merely be an exercise of futility as there

15

is no amendment that can cure its defect.” Id. at *5 (citing Ascon Props., Inc., 866 F.2d at

16

1160).

17

Defendant thus argues that any amendment in this case would be futile since Plaintiff’s

18

claims against the Defendants in the proposed Amended Complaint concern their actions as

19

DOC officials and employees. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff makes no allegations

20

concerning Defendants’ actions in their individual capacity and that Plaintiff still names DOC as

21

a Defendant and continues to seek money damages from all the newly named Defendants.

22

Defendant notes that in the government’s motion to dismiss, the decision in Ngiraingas v.

23

Sanchez, 495 U.S. 182, 110 S. Ct. 1737, 109 L. Ed. 2d 163 (1990), bars Plaintiff from

24

recovering money damages from governmental parties. Defendant thus argues that Plaintiff can

25

plead no facts that would cure the amended complaint’s deficiencies and as a result, the court

26
27

1

If the proposed amendment is granted, this would be Plaintiff’s Third Amended
28 Complaint.
Page -9-

1

should deny the claims in the amended complaint against the individually named Defendants

2

and DOC without leave to amend.

3

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because it has not met the

4

requirements of Notice Pleading. Defendant cites to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

5

Procedure. Rule 8 provides that “a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement

6

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The purpose

7

of this rule is to give the defense fair notice of the plaintiff’s claims. Fair notice “enable[s] the

8

adverse party to answer and prepare for trial, allow[s] the application of res judicata, and

9

identify[ies] the nature of the case so it may be assigned the proper form of trial.” Simmons v.

10

Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting 2A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 8.13, at 8-58 (2d

11

ed. 1994)). A court may dismiss or strike a complaint that fails to meet the notice pleading.

12

In Lemore v. California Dept. Of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 726 F. 3d 1062 (9th

13

Cir.), 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals discussed the necessary elements a plaintiff must

14

show in order to state a claim for a failure to provide medical treatment.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

“To set forth a constitutional claim under the Eighth Amendment
predicated upon the failure to provide medical treatment, first the
plaintiff must show a serious medical need by demonstrating that
failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in further significant
injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Second, a
plaintiff must show the defendant's response to the need was
deliberately indifferent.” Conn, 591 F.3d at 1094–95 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). The “deliberate indifference”
prong requires “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner's
pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the
indifference.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2006);
Conn, 591 F.3d at 1095 (quoting Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). “Indifference
may appear when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere
with medical treatment, or it may be shown in the way in which prison
[officials] provide medical care.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (citations and
internal quotations marks omitted). “[T]he indifference to [a
prisoner's] medical needs must be substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’
‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this [claim].”
Broughton v. Cutter Labs., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir.1980) (citing
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105–06, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251
(1976)). Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs. Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d
1332, 1334 (9th Cir.1990).

27

Thus, in order to state a claim for a failure to provide medical treatment, Plaintiff has to show in

28

his proposed amended complaint that he had a serious medical need and that the Defendants
Page -10-

1

“were subjectively aware of the serious medical need and failed to adequately respond.”

2

Furthermore, Plaintiff must meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8.

3

As stated above, Rule 8 requires Plaintiff to provide a “short and plain statement of his

4

claims showing that he is entitled to the relief requested therein. In his legal claims, Plaintiff

5

alleges in Paragraph 20 that Defendants, with knowledge of Plaintiff’s medical needs, and/or

6

with deliberate indifference to such medical needs, have acted or failed to act in such a way as to

7

deprive Plaintiff of necessary and adequate medical care, thereby endangering the Plaintiff’s

8

health and well being. Paragraph 21 alleges that Defendants, with knowledge of Plaintiff’s

9

medical needs, and/or with deliberate indifference to such medical needs, have acted or failed to

10

act in such a way as to prevent Plaintiff from obtaining needed medical treatment and care from

11

reaching the Plaintiff, thereby endangering the Plaintiff’s health and well-being. In reviewing the

12

said paragraphs and the other paragraphs where Plaintiff has alleged his legal claims, the court

13

notes that these allegations are simply conclusory on the part of Plaintiff.

14

In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), the Supreme Court announced a

15

“plausibility” pleading standard. Under such standard, the pleader is required to supply

16

necessary details that would make the claim plausible rather than merely possible with

17

conclusory recitals of the elements of the claim sought for relief.

18

Twombly concerned a conspiracy claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Id. at 548-

19

49. The Supreme Court recognized that Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

20

requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

21

relief” so as to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon

22

which it rests.” Id. (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Nevertheless, the court

23

found that “[w]hile a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need

24

detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to

25

relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

26

cause of action will not do.” Id. at 555 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Court

27

further explained that “factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the

28

speculative level.” Id. The Court held that an antitrust plaintiff must plead a set of facts
Page -11-

1

“plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)” a Sherman Act violation to survive a motion

2

to dismiss. Id. at 557.

3

In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), the Supreme Court clarified

4

that Twombly’s “plausibility standard” applied to pleadings in civil actions generally, rejecting

5

the plaintiff’s suggestion that the decision in Twombly be limited to antitrust claims. 129 S. Ct.

6

at 1953. The Supreme Court stated that:

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability
requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with
a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and
plausibility of entitlement to relief.
Id. at 1949 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
In his factual allegations, Plaintiff alleges that he was confined at DOC and was not given

14

a medical examination. He was experiencing pain and suffering from a fracture. Since March,

15

2013, he needed specialized treatment for his symptoms and discomfort. He alleges that from

16

June 28, 2013 to September 18, 2013, he had not seen a doctor. However, he states that he saw

17

Dr. Castro on July 10, 2013 and that he was hospitalized at GMF for an infection on his neck. In

18

paragraph 18, he alleges upon information and belief that Defendants have taken virtually no

19

action to the recommendations made by Dr. Castro. Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that he has

20

filed grievances for Defendants’ failure to provide him with his medical needs.

21

In review of Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint, the court finds that Plaintiff has

22

failed to meet Twombly’s “plausibility” pleading standard. Plaintiff fails to supply the necessary

23

factual details to make a plausible claim for a failure to provide medical treatment claim. Under

24

such standard, Plaintiff is required to supply necessary details that would make the claim

25

plausible rather than merely possible with conclusory recitals of the elements of the claim sought

26

for relief.

27
28

In addition to his failure to meet Twombly’s “plausibility” pleading standard, the court
finds that Plaintiff, (as pointed out by Defendants in their opposition) has failed to comply with
Page -12-

1

Local Rule 7.1(c)(1) by not providing a memorandum containing points and authorities with his

2

motion to amend his amended complaint.

3

Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint is futile since it fails to

4

state a “plausible” cause of action for a failure to provide medical treatment claim. His failure to

5

provide necessary factual details with respect to the new Defendants named in his proposed

6

amended complaint make the granting of the proposed amended complaint prejudicial as to the

7

new named Defendants.

8

Therefore, based upon the above considerations and Plaintiff’s failure to meet the

9

“plausibility” pleading standard of Twombly and his noncompliance with Local Rule 7.1(c)(1) ,

10

the court will deny his motion to amend his Second Amended Complaint.

11

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

12

On August 5, 2014, Defendant Department of Correction’s Motion to Dismiss was

13

referred to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation.

14

On September 28, 2013, Defendant Department of Corrections filed a motion to dismiss

15

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. Shortly after that motion by Defendant Department of

16

Corrections, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his Second Amended Complaint. The court has

17

denied that motion, supra. It is therefore now appropriate to address Defendant Department of

18

Correction’s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

19

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint names only one Defendant, i.e., the Department

20

of Corrections.2 Defendant moves to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint because it fails to

21

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

22
23

A review of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint shows that it fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.

24
25

Plaintiff has filed a suit based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Department of
Corrections for civil rights violations as alleged in the Second Amended Complaint.

26
2

The court notes that in his caption, Plaintiff includes the Attorney General of Guam as a
named Defendant. The complaint, however, fails to make any allegations with regard to the
28 Attorney General. Thus, the court does not find the Attorney General to be a Defendant herein.
27

Page -13-

1

Title 42, United States Code, Section1983 provides that every person who under any

2

statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State, Territorial, or District of Columbia

3

law subjects or causes to be subjected any citizen or other person to the deprivation of any rights,

4

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States shall be liable

5

to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proceeding for redress.

6

As the court has stated above, the sole named Defendant in this action is the Department

7

of Corrections, an agency of the government of Guam. The department is immune from suit

8

under § 1983 because the government of Guam is not a person within the meaning of the said act.

9

In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Ngiraingas v. Sanchez, 495 U.S. 182 (1990), Ngiraingas, the

10

petitioner, filed a suit in this court against the government of Guam, the Guam Police

11

Department, the Director in her official capacity, and various police officers in their official and

12

individual capacities. The court dismissed the claims and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

13

affirmed the dismissal with respect to the government, the police department, and the individual

14

defendants in their official capacities. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal and held

15

that “Neither the Territory of Guam nor its officers acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’

16

under Section 1983.”

17

Based upon Ngiraingas, the undersigned recommends that the Second Amended

18

Complaint filed herein by Plaintiff against the Department of Corrections be dismissed with

19

prejudice. There can be no proper amendments made against the Defendant to make a case

20

actionable against it under § 1983.

21
22

/s/ Joaquin V.E. Manibusan, Jr.
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated: Sep 10, 2014

23
24
25
26
27
28

NOTICE:

THE PARTIES HAVE FOURTEEN (14) DAYS TO FILE OBJECTIONS
TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION.
Page -14-