DuBois v. Washoe County Jail

Filing 39

ORDER - Defendant Hahn's 36 Motion to Stay Discovery is DENIED as moot. Defendant Hahn's 31 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 04/24/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

MATTHEW A. DUBOIS,

10
11
12
13

Case No. 3:12-cv-00415-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
WASHOE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

Before the Court are plaintiff’s amended complaint (dkt. no. 30), defendant

17

Hahn’s motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 31), plaintiff’s opposition (dkt. no. 37), and defendant

18

Hahn’s reply (dkt. no. 38). Based upon the Court’s own review of the complaint and

19

defendant Hahn’s motion, the Court dismisses this action.

20

When a “prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or

21

employee of a governmental entity,” the court must “identify cognizable claims or

22

dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous,

23

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks

24

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.

25

§ 1915A(b).

26

dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

27

Allegations of a pro se complainant are held to less stringent standards than formal

28

pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam).

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” . . . [T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require
“detailed factual allegations,” but it demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers
“labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.” Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders
“naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” . . .
[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.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009) (citations omitted).

11

To restate the facts, plaintiff suffered an injury to his foot that required surgery.

12

Plaintiff was discharged from a hospital in Reno, Nevada, to the Washoe County

13

Detention Facility, on August 11, 2010. The Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, which

14

operates the jail, has contracted with Prison Health Services to provide medical care at

15

the jail. Plaintiff alleges that nurses at the jail did not follow the discharge instructions,

16

did not examine his injury, did not change the dressing, and gave him pain medication

17

only once a day, at nighttime. Plaintiff also alleges that he complained to the nurses

18

about his pain, but that the nurses falsely wrote “I am fine” in the medical files from

19

August 12 through August 16, 2010. In the evening of August 17, 2010, plaintiff

20

complained about his pain. A nurse unwrapped the dressing and then conferred with

21

defendant Hahn, a doctor at the jail. Defendant Hahn whispered instructions to her, and

22

she re-wrapped plaintiff’s foot. In the early morning of August 18, 2010, plaintiff was

23

extradited to California. Once in the Placer County jail, plaintiff’s foot was examined,

24

rotting tissue was removed, and plaintiff underwent surgery again. He has lost tissue

25

permanently and his foot is deformed.

26

Plaintiff has sued the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, Prison Health Services,

27

and defendant Hahn in both his official capacity and his individual capacity. Suing

28

defendant Hahn in his official capacity is redundant because it is another way of suing

1

Prison Health Services, which already is a defendant. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S.

2

159, 165 (1984). Any of the Court’s discussions regarding Prison Health Services apply

3

with equal force to defendant Hahn in his official capacity. A private medical provider

4

for a jail acts under color of state law and may be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

5

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 54 (1988). To succeed with the claims against the Washoe

6

County Sheriff’s Office and Prison Health Services, plaintiff must prove that any

7

constitutional violations that he suffered occurred as a result of an official policy or

8

custom of Prison Health Services or Washoe County. Monell v. Department of Social

9

Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978); Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc.,

10

698 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2012) (Monell’s requirements apply to private entities sued

11

under § 1983).

12

Plaintiff claims that defendants were deliberately indifferent to the need to treat

13

his foot after surgery. The Fourteenth Amendment is the relevant constitutional

14

provision in this case because plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee, but the deliberate-

15

indifference principles of the Eighth Amendment apply. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,

16

535-37 & n.16 (1979). “[D]eliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury

17

states a cause of action under section 1983.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105

18

(1976). “A ‘serious’ medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could

19

result in further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’”

20

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Gamble, 429 U.S.

21

104), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th

22

Cir. 1997) (en banc). “The existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient

23

would find important and worthy of comment or treatment; the presence of a medical

24

condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily activities; or the existence of

25

chronic and substantial pain are examples of indications that a prisoner has a ‘serious’

26

need for medical treatment.” McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059-60.

27

Deliberate indifference is subjective. The prison official cannot be held liable

28

“unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety;

1

the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a

2

substantial risk of harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”

3

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 838 (1994). “To show deliberate indifference, the plaintiff must

4

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

5

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

6

an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health.” Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir.

7

2012) (internal quotations omitted). However, a difference of opinion over the

8

appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference. Toguchi v.

9

Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004).

Farmer v.

10

In count 1, plaintiff claims that the failure to treat his foot was a result of official

11

policy or custom of Prison Health Services and the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office. In

12

its earlier order, the Court informed plaintiff that he had not alleged any facts indicating

13

that what happened to him was the result of official policy or custom. In the amended

14

complaint, plaintiff alleges that the jail’s medical staff took him to the jail’s infirmary and

15

placed him into a holding cell without assessing his medical needs. Despite using the

16

phrase, “due to the customs or policy and procedures of Washoe County Sheriff’s Office

17

and Prison Health Service Inc.,” plaintiff does not allege any facts indicating that such a

18

custom, policy, or procedure exists. Plaintiff has, at best, made a the-defendant-

19

harmed-me allegation that Iqbal disapproves.

20

In count 2, plaintiff alleges that the nurses and Dr. Hahn attended plaintiff only

21

once each afternoon, did not inspect his injuries despite plaintiff’s complaints about his

22

pain, and did not care for his wound. The nurses are not named defendants in this

23

action.

24

nurses, he cannot be liable simply because he is a supervisor. Ybarra v. Reno

25

Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 680 (9th Cir.1984). Furthermore,

26

plaintiff’s allegations in count 2 conflate the separate actions of the nurses and Dr.

27

Hahn. Plaintiff’s allegations earlier in the complaint still show that the nurses examined

28

him daily, but that Dr. Hahn viewed plaintiff only once, in the evening of August 17,

Dr. Hahn is a named defendant.

Assuming that Dr. Hahn supervises the

1

2010. As the Court noted in its earlier order, plaintiff was extradited a few hours later,

2

and plaintiff still has not alleged any facts showing that Dr. Hahn could have stopped

3

that extradition. Furthermore, nothing in plaintiff’s allegations indicates that, even if the

4

nurses were falsifying the records, that Dr. Hahn knew about the falsifications. Plaintiff

5

has not stated a claim that defendant Hahn was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s

6

serious medical needs.

7

Count 3 has two claims. First, plaintiff alleges that Washoe County Sheriff’s

8

Office and Prison Health Services were made aware of plaintiff’s condition, because he

9

told the nurses about his condition. However, as the Court explained in its discussion of

10

count 1, the standard for section 1983 liability for a municipality or private organization

11

is not whether agents of the organization knew about plaintiff’s medical condition, but

12

whether the failure to treat plaintiff’s medical condition was the result of the

13

organization’s policy or custom. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts indicating that the

14

Washoe County Sheriff’s Office or Prison Health Services had a policy or custom not to

15

treat serious medical conditions. Therefore, this part of count 3 has the same defect as

16

count 1, and it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

17

Second in count 3, plaintiff next alleges that when the nurse took a look at his

18

foot, conferred with Dr. Hahn, and then re-wrapped his foot, Dr. Hahn was deliberately

19

indifferent to his medical condition. This part of count 3 has the same defect as count 2:

20

Plaintiff was due to be extradited shortly, and plaintiff has not shown how Dr. Hahn

21

could have stopped that extradition. It also fails to state a claim upon which relief can

22

be granted.

23

The defects in the amended complaint are the same as the defects in the original

24

complaint, despite the Court giving plaintiff the opportunity to correct those defects.

25

Further amendment would not be useful, and the Court dismisses this action.
Defendant Hahn has filed a motion to stay discovery (dkt. no. 36). The motion is

26
27

moot because the Court is dismissing the action.

28

///

1
2
3
4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Hahn’s motion to stay discovery
(dkt. no. 36) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Hahn’s motion to dismiss (dkt. no.
31) is GRANTED.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a

6

claim upon which relief can be granted. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

7

accordingly.

8

DATED THIS 24th day of April 2013.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE