Gordon v. Sequeira et al
Filing
31
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IN PART WITH LEAVE TO AMEND re 28 - Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 6/7/2018. (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amend ed Complaint is DENIED as futile. (2) Plaintiff's claims as alleged in the operative FAC against Defendants Thomas Craig, III, M.D., and Keoni Morreira are DISMISSED without prejudice. (3) Plaintiff is DIRECTED to submit an amended complaint on the court's prisoner civil rights complaint form that explicitly sets forth all of the relevant facts that support his federal civil rights and state negligence claims as alleged against Defendants Paul Neeson, Thomas Craig, III, M.D., Keoni Morreira, and Does 1 and 2 in their individual capacities on or before June 21, 2018. (emt, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
SCOTT GORDON, #A1080674,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FRANCIS SEQUEIRA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )
CIV. NO. 1:17-cv-00541 DKW-KJM
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
FILE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND DISMISSING
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IN
PART WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint (“Motion”) and proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). ECF
Nos. 28, 28-1. The SAC clarifies that Defendants Halawa Correctional Facility
(“HCF”) counselor Paul Neeson, physician Thomas Craig, III, M.D., unit team
manager Keoni Morreira, and classification custody officers Does 1 and 2 are
named in their individual capacities and requests the court take supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state negligence claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.1
The SAC omits previously alleged facts that supported Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendants Craig and Morreira. Consequently, if the SAC is permitted to
be filed, these claims are subject to dismissal for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff’s Motion is therefore DENIED.
1
Plaintiff submits this amended pleading in response to the April 3, 2018 Order
Dismissing First Amended Complaint in Part and Directing Service. See ECF No. 15.
Further, on closer review of the operative March 20, 2018 First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 14, it is clear that Plaintiff fails to state a claim
against Defendants Craig and Morreira without reference to his original Complaint
and these claims must be DISMISSED. Plaintiff is therefore DIRECTED to
submit an amended complaint on the court’s prisoner civil rights complaint form
that explicitly sets forth all of the facts that support his federal civil rights and state
negligence claims as alleged against Defendants Neeson, Craig, Morreira, and
Does 1 and 2 in their individual capacities. Plaintiff shall file the amended
pleading on or before June 21, 2018.
I.
Background
Plaintiff has filed four pleadings in this action, with varying degrees of
detail. See ECF Nos. 1, 8, 14, and 28-1. Plaintiff first failed to sign the original
Complaint and the court instructed him to sign and submit another pleading. See
Ord., ECF No. 7. Plaintiff did so on January 5, 2018. Am. Compl., ECF No. 8.
On January 24, 2018, the court screened the amended Complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims: (1) for damages against all
Defendants named in their official capacities; (2) as asserted under the Eighth
2
Amendment, because it appeared that Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee;2 (3) for
retaliation under the First Amendment; (4) alleging assault and battery under state
law; and (5) against Defendants HCF Warden Francis Sequeira, Administrator
Shari Kimoto, and Does 1-10. The court held that Plaintiff stated a claim against
Defendants Craig, Neeson, Gary Kaplan, and Morreira in their individual
capacities and granted him leave to file an amended pleading to cure the
deficiencies in those claims dismissed without prejudice. See Ord., ECF No. 9.
On March 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed the FAC, realleging claims against Does
1-4, Sequeira, Neeson, Craig, Kaplan, and Morreira. FAC, ECF No. 14. On April
3, 2018, the court dismissed the FAC in part and directed service on Defendants
Craig, Neeson, Morreira, and Doe Defendants 1 and 2. Ord., ECF No. 15.
On April 3, 2018, Plaintiff served the FAC on Craig, Neeson, and Morreira.
See ECF Nos. 20-27.
On May 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed the present Motion to file the SAC. ECF
No. 28.
On June 1, 2018, Morreira and Neeson filed their Answer. ECF No. 29. Dr.
Craig has not answered the FAC, and Plaintiff has not identified Does 1 and 2.
2
After Plaintiff clarified that he was not a pretrial detainee when the incidents allegedly
occurred, the court reinstated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims. See Ord., ECF No. 11.
3
II.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15
Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(“FRCP”), “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written
consent or the court’s leave.” Rule 15(a)(2) advises, “[t]he court should freely give
leave when justice so requires.” In ruling on a motion for leave to amend, courts
consider: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4)
futility of amendment, and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended their
complaint. Futility alone can justify denying leave to amend. Nunes v. Ashcroft,
375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004).
For purposes of assessing futility, the legal standard is the same as it would
be on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988). Under
Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d
1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012). “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible
claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to
draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
4
Moreover, because Plaintiff is a prisoner alleging claims against government
officials, the court is required to screen the SAC and “identify cognizable claims or
dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint” if its claims are frivolous,
malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b). Screening under § 1915A(a)
involves the same standard of review as that used under Rule 12(b)(6). Watison v.
Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012).
III.
Discussion
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to protect him from assault on June 6
and 20, 2016, by inmate Shalom Tuimalealiifano and his gang associates.
A.
Failure-to-Protect
“[P]rison officials have a duty . . . to protect prisoners from violence at the
hands of other prisoners.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994) (citations
and quotations omitted). To establish a failure-to-protect claim, “the inmate must
show that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious
harm” and that the prison official acted with “deliberate indifference” to the
inmate’s health or safety. Id. A prison official acts with deliberate indifference if
he “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety” – that is,
“the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn
5
that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”
Id. at 837.
B.
Analysis3
In the SAC, Plaintiff alleges that HCF classification officers Does 1 and 2
incorrectly classified Tuimalealiifano as a medium custody inmate when he
returned to HCF, despite their explicit knowledge of Tuimalealiifano’s extensive
history of violence in prison and maximum custody classification status prior to his
return to Hawaii. See SAC, ECF No. 28-1, PageID #186-88. Due to this alleged
reckless disregard (or deliberate indifference) or negligent misclassification,
Plaintiff alleges Does 1 and 2 failed to protect him from Tuimaleaiifano’s assault
on June 6, 2016, after Plaintiff was moved into Tuimalealiifano’s housing and
workline area. The SAC states a plausible claim for relief against Does 1 and 2.
Plaintiff was treated and rehoused in the HCF medical unit until June 20,
2016. Plaintiff alleges that HCF counselor Neeson investigated the June 6, 2016
assault, interviewed Plaintiff on his return from the hospital, and obtained
“anonymous kites”4 from other inmates regarding Tuimalealiifano’s violent
3
These facts are taken from Plaintiff’s earlier pleadings and from the SAC and are
accepted as true for the purposes of this Order. See Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th
Cir. 2014).
4
Plaintiff earlier described these “Anonymous Kites” as notes “by other inmates who
(continued...)
6
behavior. Id. at PageID #189. Armed with this information, Neeson initiated a
“Separatee status” form to keep Plaintiff separated from Tuimalealiifano and his
gang associates on his release from the medical unit. Id. Plaintiff alleges that,
despite Neeson’s knowledge of the danger of housing Plaintiff near
Tuimalealiifano and other gang members, and his assurances that Plaintiff would
be safe, Neeson failed to prevent Plaintiff from being housed with separated gang
members on his release from the medical unit. Plaintiff was immediately assaulted
and taken hostage on June 20, 2016. The SAC adequately alleges a plausible claim
for relief against Neeson.
Plaintiff next alleges that unit team manager Morreira failed “to review, file,
submit, and/or document everything in the course of his duties[, which] resulted in
the establishment of the deliberate indifference of defendant Morreira. Id. at
PageID #190. Plaintiff alleged the identical statement of facts against Morreira in
the FAC. See FAC, ECF No. 14, PageID #113. Plaintiff fails to identify what
Morreira’s duties were, explain what Morreira knew regarding the assaults, or
allege what Morreira did or failed to do that caused Plaintiff to be assaulted on
June 6 or 20, 2016.
4
(...continued)
feared for their lives.” See Am. Compl., ECF No. 8, PageID #43.
7
In contrast, Plaintiff’s earlier pleadings explained that Morreira “was
responsible for the reviewing and filing of all documentation pertaining to plaintiff
in the course of his duties.” Am. Compl., ECF No. 8, PageID #44. He alleged
that, in light of Morreira’s responsibility to maintain accurate files on Plaintiff, his
“failure to review, file, submit and/or document everything concerning the
plaintiff” led to his being housed with Tuimalealiifano and the other gang
members, and thus, constituted deliberate indifference or negligence toward his
safety. Id. at PageID #50. These statements were sufficient to state a plausible
failure-to-protect claim against Morreira. Plaintiff fails, however, to state a
plausible claim for relief against Morreira in either the FAC or SAC, and these
claims must be DISMISSED.
In the SAC and the FAC, Plaintiff’s only allegations against Dr. Craig are:
36. Between June 6th 2016, and June 20th, 2016, defendant Craig as a
medical doctor met with plaintiff regularly.
37. Defendant Craig as a medical doctor failed to protect the plaintiff
in the course of his duties and establish the deliberate indifference of
defendant Craig.
FAC, ECF No. 14, PageID #113; SAC, ECF No. 28-1, PageID #190. In his earlier
pleadings, Plaintiff alleged that he had met with Dr. Craig many times between
June 6 and 20, 2016, during which meetings Plaintiff discussed his fears for his
safety regarding Tuimalealiifano and his gang associates. See Compl., ECF No. 1,
8
PageID #5; Am. Compl., ECF No. 8, PageID #43 (“Defendant Craig also had
obtain[ed] intimate knowledge of the “Threats to Safety” toward plaintiff through
his many meetings with plaintiff.”). Plaintiff fails to reallege this crucial statement
of facts in the SAC or in the FAC. Consequently, Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient
facts that show that Dr. Craig knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to
Plaintiff’s safety. Plaintiff’s claims against Dr. Craig must also be DISMISSED.
Permitting Plaintiff to file the proposed SAC would be futile, and Plaintiff’s
Motion is DENIED. Moreover, it is clear that the operative FAC, standing alone
and without reference to Plaintiff’s earlier pleadings, fails to state plausible claims
for relief against Defendants Dr. Craig and Morreira. Consequently, Plaintiff’s
claims in the FAC against Craig and Morreira as alleged must be dismissed.
IV.
Conclusion
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint is DENIED
as futile.
(2) Plaintiff’s claims as alleged in the operative FAC against Defendants
Thomas Craig, III, M.D., and Keoni Morreira are DISMISSED without prejudice.
(3) Plaintiff is DIRECTED to submit an amended complaint on the court’s
prisoner civil rights complaint form that explicitly sets forth all of the relevant
facts that support his federal civil rights and state negligence claims as alleged
9
against Defendants Paul Neeson, Thomas Craig, III, M.D., Keoni Morreira, and
Does 1 and 2 in their individual capacities on or before June 21, 2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 7, 2018 at Honolulu, Hawaii.
/s/ Derrick K. Watson
Derrick K. Watson
United States District Judge
Gordon v. Sequeira, et al.; Civil No. 17-00541 DKW-KJM; ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IN PART WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND
Gordon v. Sequeira, No. 1:17-cv-00367 DKW-KJM; Nondsp Ords‘18 Gordon 17-541 (dny m file SAC, ord amd. C)
10
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?