Meadows v. Atencio et al

Filing 46

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER re: 31 MOTION to Amend/Correct 3 Complaint filed by Daisy Meadows. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint (Dkt. 31 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (ckh)

Case 1:18-cv-00265-BLW Document 46 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
DAISY MEADOWS, a/k/a ROY
TROST,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:18-cv-00265-BLW

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

v.
HENRY ATENCIO, et al.,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint. Dkt. 31.
Because the Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking redress from a governmental entity,
officers, and employees of a governmental entity, the Court must review the
proposed amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Having done so, the
Court enters the following order.
BACKGROUND
On November 29, 2018, United States District Judge David Nye issued an
Initial Review Order (IRO) which dismissed all claims in Plaintiff’s complaint,
except the following:

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Case 1:18-cv-00265-BLW Document 46 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 15

Plaintiff may proceed on her Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect and
corresponding negligence claims against Defendants Blair, Taylor,
Sanders, and Martin. She may also proceed on her medical treatment
claims, as well as her corresponding state law claims for negligence or
medical malpractice, against Defendants Alviso, Eldridge, Siegert,
Campbell, and Atencio.
IRO, Dkt. 12 at 28.
Subsequently, by order of July 26, 2019, the undersigned dismissed all
claims against Defendants Atencio, Alviso, and Eldridge due to Plaintiff’s failure
to timely serve the Defendants or show good cause for the failure. Dkt. 30. Thus
the Defendants remaining in this action are Eric Blair, Jacob Taylor, Charles
Sanders, Chester Martin, Rona Siegert, and Walter Campbell. Plaintiff’s surviving
Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim is against Defendants Blair, Taylor,
Sanders, and Martin. Plaintiff’s medical treatment and corresponding state claims
for medical malpractice is against Defendants Siegert and Campbell.
On July 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend her complaint
but failed to attach the proposed amended complaint as required by District Local
Civil Rule 15.1. Dkt. 31. After Defendants filed a response pointing out the
procedural shortcoming, Docket 33, Plaintiff filed the proposed amended
complaint. Dkt. 33. On December 9, 2019, the Court issued an order, permitting
Defendants to file a response to the proposed amended complaint. Dkt. 38.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

Case 1:18-cv-00265-BLW Document 46 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 15

Defendants filed the response on December 23, 2019. Dkt. 40. Defendants
do not object to the Court granting the Motion to Amend. Instead, they ask instead
that upon review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, that the Court dismiss the proposed
amended complaint in its entirety on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Dkt. 40 at 4–5. Defendants assert that, “even under
the most liberal notice pleading requirements,” the proposed amended complaint
fails “to allege even one plausible claim for damages by engaging in impermissibly
vague group pleading.” Dkt. 40 at 3, citing Sheeran v. Blyth Shipholding SA,
2015 WL 9048979 *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 16, 2015). Defendants argue also that, Plaintiff
has not asked for relief a jury or the Court could plausibly award. Dkt. 40 at 4.
Defendants request the Court screen the proposed amended complaint, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, dismiss it in its entirety and allow for dispositive motions on
the surviving claims in the initial complaint.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Prisoner Litigation Control Act of 1995 (PLRA), requires a court to
“review … a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. The PLRA requires a court to “identify cognizable claims or dismiss the
complaint, or any portion of the complaint” that is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

Case 1:18-cv-00265-BLW Document 46 Filed 05/29/20 Page 4 of 15

state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or … seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.
DISCUSSION
As set forth above, the Court is required to review complaints filed by
prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity, or an officer or employee of
a governmental entity, to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. 28
U.S.C. §1915A. The statute applies the requirement to “a complaint in a civil
action” and thus does not restrict the review to an original complaint. See Outley v.
Penzone, No. 2019 WL 3183521, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 15, 2019). As such, the Court
must review the proposed amended complaint, and dismiss it or any portion thereof
that states a frivolous or malicious claim, fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
A.

Pleading Standard
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A complaint fails to
state a claim for relief under Rule 8 if the factual assertions in the complaint, taken
as true, are insufficient for the reviewing court plausibly “to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

Case 1:18-cv-00265-BLW Document 46 Filed 05/29/20 Page 5 of 15

action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. In other
words, although Rule 8 “does not require detailed factual allegations, ... it demands
more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). If the facts plead are “merely consistent with a
defendant’s liability,” or if there is an “obvious alternative explanation” that would
not result in liability, the complaint has not stated a claim for relief that is plausible
on its face. Id. at 678, 682 (internal quotation marks omitted).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff Daisy Meadows is a prisoner who was previously in custody of the
Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC). She currently incarcerated at Lovelock
Correctional Center in Lovelock, Nevada. Dkt. 40 at 6. In her amended complaint,
which was filed before her transfer from IDOC to the Lovelock facility, Plaintiff
realleges the claims set forth in her original complaint, seeking declaratory,
monetary, and injunctive relief for alleged constitutional violations related to her
status as a transgender inmate while housed as an inmate in Idaho. Am. Compl.,
Dkt. 33. Plaintiff seeks to add the Idaho Department of Corrections as a defendant.
Id. Plaintiff seeks also to add as defendants the following five individuals in their
official capacities: Josh Tewalt, Director of IDOC who Plaintiff seeks to add in
place of defendant Henry Atencio, former director of IDOC; Jeff Zumuda, Deputy

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

Case 1:18-cv-00265-BLW Document 46 Filed 05/29/20 Page 6 of 15

Director of IDOC; Jay Christensen1, Warden of Idaho State Correctional Center
(ISCC) in place of Howard Keith, former Warden of ISCC; Scott Eliason, M.D.,
Regional Psychiatric Director for Corizon and member of IDOC Management
Treatment Committee for Plaintiff’s care; and Jeremy Clark, Licensed Therapist
and IDOC Clinical Supervisor. See Am. Compl., Dkt. 33 at 8–12. In addition to
adding these Defendants, Plaintiff seeks also to add claims against all Defendants
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Rehabilitation Act, and
Affordable Care Act (ACA).
First, because Plaintiff is no longer housed under the supervision of IDOC or
ISCC, her claims for injunctive relief to cure alleged ongoing violations of her
Constitutional rights are moot. Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995)
(“[a]n inmate’s release from prison while [their] claims are pending generally will
moot any claims for injunctive relief relating to the prison’s policies unless the suit
has been certified as a class action.”).
Second, Defendants argue that because IDOC is a branch of the state
government, IDOC has immunity in Federal court under the Eleventh Amendment.
The Court agrees. See Dana v. Tewalt, No. 1:18-CV-00298-DCN, 2020 WL

1

Plaintiff also sues Christensen only in his individual capacity.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6

Case 1:18-cv-00265-BLW Document 46 Filed 05/29/20 Page 7 of 15

1545786, at *5 (D. Idaho Apr. 1, 2020). Accordingly, IDOC is dismissed from all
claims except Plaintiff’s ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and ACA claims.
Third, the claims that are not rendered moot by Plaintiff’s transfer out of
IDOC and ISCC custody and supervision include any plausibly alleged claims for
damages resultant from the alleged violations of Plaintiff’s rights while she was
held in IDOC custody. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court will address
whether Plaintiff’s amended complaint includes any such plausible claims for
damages. This analysis is two-fold. First, the Court must determine if the surviving
claims from the original complaint now alleged against proposed new Defendants
are plausible as to those defendants2, and second, whether the newly added causes
of action in the amended complaint under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and ACA
are plausible as to all defendants.
A.

Failure to Protect Claim as to Newly Named Defendants
As detailed in the IRO, Plaintiff alleges that she has been subjected to

“repeated sexual assault” in prison. Compl. at 4. Plaintiff repeats this allegation in
her proposed amended complaint, asserting that, defendants failed to afford her

Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint includes repetitious claims against once-named
and currently named defendants. The Court will not screen those claims here because, after
careful review, the Court finds the claims as alleged in the original complaint and as realleged in
the proposed amended complaint are substantively and legally the same.
2

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 7

Case 1:18-cv-00265-BLW Document 46 Filed 05/29/20 Page 8 of 15

adequate protection from predatory male inmates, resulting in a 2017 sexual
assault. Dkt. 33 at 17. Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint does not include
any new facts or allegations related to the five newly-named defendants. Thus, as
there are no factual allegations as to the new defendants regarding the failure to
protect claim, the proposed amended complaint has not stated a failure to protect
claim for relief that is plausible on its face as to the newly-named defendants.
B.

Inadequate Medical Treatment and Medical Malpractice Claims as to
Newly Named Defendants
Plaintiff claims Defendants violated her Eighth Amendment Rights through

deliberate indifference to her medical needs and failure to provide adequate
medical treatment, including gender confirmation surgery. Dkt. 33-2 at 1–2.
In the IRO, the Court allowed Plaintiff to proceed on the inadequate medical
treatment claim, as well as her corresponding state law claims for negligence or
medical malpractice against Defendants Alviso, Eldridge, Siegert, Campbell, and
Atencio. Dkt. 12 at 28. Alviso and Eldridge were treating medical providers who
both allegedly “knew and told plaintiff she needed [surgery] but ... had been
advised that he [or she] could not recommend it.” Dkt. 12 at 18. Siegert, Campbell,
and Atencio were the prison officials who allegedly instructed Alviso and Eldridge
not to recommend this treatment for Plaintiff. Id. The Court later dismissed the
claims against Defendants Alviso, Eldridge, and Atencio for Plaintiff’s failure to

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 8

Case 1:18-cv-00265-BLW Document 46 Filed 05/29/20 Page 9 of 15

timely serve such Defendants. See Dkt. 30. Thus, the original Defendants subject
to the claims are Siegert and Campbell, both prison officials.
In her amended complaint, Plaintiff seeks also to assert the same inadequate
medical treatment and medical malpractice claims against the following five
newly-proposed Defendants: Josh Tewalt, who replaced Atencio as Director of
IDOC at some juncture during Plaintiff’s confinement; Jeff Zumuda, Deputy
Director of IDOC; Jay Christensen, Warden of Idaho State Correctional Center
(ISCC), Christensen replaced Howard Yordy as Warden during Plaintiff’s
confinement; Scott Eliason, the Regional Psychiatric Director for Corizon; and
Jeremy Clark, an IDOC clinical mental health counselor and supervisor. Dkt. 33 at
8–12.
The only claims not made moot by Plaintiff’s transfer out of IDOC custody
are her damages claims. In general, prison officials and prison medical providers
are not liable for damages in their individual capacities under Section 1983 unless
they personally participated in the alleged constitutional violations. Taylor v. List,
880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “A supervisor is only liable for constitutional
violations of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the
violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Id. A
defendant may be held liable as a supervisor under Section 1983 “if there exists ...
a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 9

Case 1:18-cv-00265-BLW Document 46 Filed 05/29/20 Page 10 of 15

constitutional violation.’” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011)
(citing Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)).
A plaintiff can establish this causal connection by plausibly alleging that a
defendant (1) “set[] in motion a series of acts by others”; (2) “knowingly refus[ed]
to terminate a series of acts by others, which [the supervisor] knew or reasonably
should have known would cause others to inflict a constitutional injury”; (3) failed
to act or improperly acted in the training, supervision, or control of his
subordinates”; (4) “acquiesc[ed] in the constitutional deprivation”; or (5) engag[ed]
in “conduct that showed a reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others.”
Id. at 1205–09.
Defendant Christensen is the only individual Plaintiff seeks to sue in both a
professional and individual capacity. Christensen is Warden of Idaho State
Correctional Center (ISCC). Dkt. 33 at 9–10. Plaintiff alleges that his role includes
staff oversight and training, implementation of SOPs, and general management of
the welfare of inmates at IDOC. Id. Plaintiff alleges also that Christensen was a
member of the Management Treatment Committee for ISCC and thus directly
participated in decisions related to her treatment. Id. at 10. Beyond these
descriptions of Christensen’s job capacity responsibilities, Plaintiff makes no
factual showing that Christensen directed, participated in, or had knowledge of any
alleged inadequate medical treatment. Furthermore, Christensen is not a licensed
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 10

Case 1:18-cv-00265-BLW Document 46 Filed 05/29/20 Page 11 of 15

medical provider; thus, no there is no plausible state law medical negligence claim
as to his conduct. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for
damages as to Christensen.
C.

ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and ACA Claims as to All
Defendants
Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint seeks to add federal statutory claims

under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Rehabilitation Act, and
Affordable Care Act (ACA). Defendants assert Plaintiff has failed to state a claim
under any of the laws. The Court agrees.
i.

ADA and Rehabilitation Act Claims

Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint alleges her rights under the ADA
and the Rehabilitation Act were violated by Defendants’ alleged violations of her
Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical treatment and for Defendants’ failure
to protect her from harm.
Courts apply the same standards to discrimination claims under the ADA as
they do to discrimination claims under the Rehabilitation Act. Robinson v. Catlett,
725 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1210 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (citing Walton v. United States
Marshals Serv., 492 F.3d 998, 1003 n. 1 (9th Cir.2007). To state a claim under the
ADA or the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) she is an individual
with a disability; (2) she is “otherwise qualified” to participate in or receive the

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 11

Case 1:18-cv-00265-BLW Document 46 Filed 05/29/20 Page 12 of 15

benefit of the entity’s services, programs, or activities, i.e., she meets the essential
eligibility requirements of the entity, with or without reasonable accommodation;
(3) she was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the
entity’s services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by
the public entity solely by reason of her disability; and (4) the entity is a public
entity (for the ADA claim) or receives federal financial assistance (for the
Rehabilitation Act claim). Zukle v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 166 F.3d 1041, 1045
(9th Cir.1999).
The definition of “disability” in both statutes is virtually identical. Doe v.
Massachusetts Dep’t of Correction, 2018 WL 2994403, at *5 (D. Mass. June 14,
2018). Disability is defined under the ADA as: (A) a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of the
individual; (B) a record of the impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an
impairment. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). “[M]ajor life activities include, but are not
limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating,
sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning,
reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.” Id. § 12102(2)(A).
An individual is “substantially” limited in a major life activity if her limitation “is
a severe restriction ... compared to how unimpaired individuals normally” engage
in that activity. See Walton, 492 F.3d at 1007.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 12

Case 1:18-cv-00265-BLW Document 46 Filed 05/29/20 Page 13 of 15

Notably, state prisons, like IDOC fall “within Title II’s statutory definition
of ‘public entity,’ which includes ‘any ... instrumentality of a State ... or local
government.’” Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (2008) (citing
42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(B)).
Plaintiff does not identify a physical or mental impairment specifically tied
to her ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. Instead, Plaintiff presents the each
claim unadorned by any supporting factual contentions. Plaintiff’s amended
complaint does allege, however, that she asked for accommodations for her gender
dysphoria, such as female commissary items—but that Defendants failed to
provide them. Dkt 33 at 44; See Robinson v. Catlett, 725 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1210
(S.D. Cal. 2010) (where the plaintiff’s ADA claim failed because he did not allege
that he was denied the benefits of an entity’s program solely by reason of his
disability). Notably, however, it is unclear whether gender dysphoria qualifies as a
disability under the ADA.3 Nevertheless, at this stage, because Plaintiff has failed
to allege a disability, her ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims fail.

See e.g. Blatt v. Cabela’s Retail, Inc., No. 5:14-CV-04822, 2017 WL 2178123, at *4
(E.D. Pa. May 18, 2017) (where “it is fairly possible to interpret the term gender identity
disorders narrowly to refer to simply the condition of identifying with a different gender, not to
exclude from ADA coverage disabling conditions that persons who identify with a different
gender may have—such as [the plaintiff’s] gender dysphoria, which substantially limits her
major life activities of interacting with others….”); Parker v. Strawser Constr., Inc., 307 F.
3

(Continued)

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 13

Case 1:18-cv-00265-BLW Document 46 Filed 05/29/20 Page 14 of 15

ii.

ACA Claim

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the ACA, 42 U.S.C. § 18116. The
ACA prohibits covered entities from discriminating on the basis of sex for the
purposes of providing health care services. 42 U.S.C.A. § 18116(a). Covered
entities include “any health program or activity, any part of which is receiving
Federal financial assistance....” Id. However, beyond citing the statutory section,
Plaintiff includes no specific allegations to support her ACA claim—in fact, she
only listed the claim once, in her initial motion. See Dkt. 31 at 3. As set forth
above, although Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not require
detailed factual allegations, it requires more than threadbare recitals of a cause of
actions. Here, all Plaintiff provides is the conclusory statement that Defendants
violated the ACA. AS such, she has failed to state a claim under the ACA.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint (Dkt. 33) fails to state any
additional claims for which relief could be granted. The Court will deny the motion

Supp. 3d 744, 755 (S.D. Ohio 2018) (where Court declined to find that gender dysphoria is an
impairment under the ADA where the plaintiff did not allege her “gender dysphoria was caused
by a physical impairment or that gender dysphoria always results from a physical impairment.”);
Doe v. Northrop Grumman Sys. Corp., 418 F. Supp. 3d 921, 930 (N.D. Ala. 2019) (where the
plaintiff made clear “allegations that his condition [was] a medical one that [did] not result from
a physical impairment.”)

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 14

Case 1:18-cv-00265-BLW Document 46 Filed 05/29/20 Page 15 of 15

to amend in full. As such, the prior rulings in the IRO (Dkt. 28) remain in effect.
However, the surviving claims for injunctive relief are moot, given Plaintiff’s
transfer from IDOC custody.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (Dkt. 31) is DENIED.

DATED: May 29, 2020

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 15