Rhymes v. Aranas et al
Filing
41
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that defendants' partial motion to dismiss (ECF No. 32 ) be GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that defendants Aranas and Cox be DISMISSED from this action. Objections to R&R due by 9/13/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 8/30/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
4
3:15-cv-00592-RCJ-VPC
MICHAEL RHYMES,
Plaintiff,
5
6
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
v.
7
8
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Robert C. Jones, United States
District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and LR IB 1-4. Before the court is defendants’ partial motion to dismiss (ECF No.
32). Plaintiff opposed (ECF No. 35), and defendants replied (ECF No. 37). For the reasons stated
below, the court recommends that defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 32) be granted.
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Michael Rhymes (“plaintiff”) is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of
Corrections (“NDOC”), and currently housed at Northern Nevada Correctional Center (“NNCC”)
in Carson City, Nevada. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff brings a civil rights claim against
various NDOC and NNCC officials.
On August 3, 2016, the District Court screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and
determined that he could proceed with his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
defendant Cynthia Sablinca. (ECF No. 6 at 10.) Plaintiff’s claim against defendants Romeo Aranas
and Warden Nash were dismissed with prejudice, as the Court found that plaintiff failed to allege
actual knowledge of the alleged unconstitutional conduct by those defendants. (See id.)
On March 31, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint. (ECF No. 22.)
Defendants did not oppose the motion, and the court granted plaintiff leave to file a second amended
complaint (“SAC”). (ECF No. 25.) The SAC names as defendants, Romeo Aranas, Greg Cox,
1
D.W. Neven, Cynthia Sablinca, and John/Jane Does 1-5, and brings an Eighth Amendment
2
deliberate indifference claim relating to a denial or delay in providing plaintiff medication. (ECF
3
No. 26.) On June 13, 2017, defendants Aranas and Cox filed a partial motion to dismiss asserting
4
that plaintiff failed to allege personal participation by the defendants and that defendants are entitled
5
to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 32.) This report and recommendation follows.
II.
6
LEGAL STANDARD
7
Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is
8
provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The ruling is a question of law. N. Star
9
Int’l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d 578, 580 (9th Cir. 1983). The court is to grant dismissal
10
when the complaint fails to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face[,]” Bell Atl. Corp.
11
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), or fails to articulate a cognizable legal theory, Taylor v.
12
Yee, 780 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir. 2015). When analyzing a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), courts
13
accept as true all well-pled factual allegations, set aside legal conclusions, and verify that the
14
complaint states a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). While
15
detailed factual allegations are not necessary, the complaint must offer more than “a formulaic
16
recitation of the elements of a cause of action,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, and include sufficient
17
facts “to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively,” Starr v.
18
Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). In conducting the dismissal analysis, the complaint is
19
construed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral
20
Inc., 710 F.3d 946, 956 (9th Cir. 2013). Moreover, the court takes particular care when reviewing
21
the pleadings of a pro se party, for a more forgiving standard applies to litigants not represented
22
by counsel. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010).
III.
23
24
A.
DISCUSSION
Civil Rights Claims Under § 1983
25
42 U.S.C. § 1983 aims “to deter state actors from using the badge of their authority to
26
deprive individuals of their federally guaranteed rights.” Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063,
27
1067 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting McDade v. West, 223 F.3d 1135, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000)). The statute
28
2
1
“provides a federal cause of action against any person who, acting under color of state law,
2
deprives another of his federal rights[,]” Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286, 290 (1999), and therefore
3
“serves as the procedural device for enforcing substantive provisions of the Constitution and
4
federal statutes,” Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). Claims under § 1983
5
require a plaintiff to allege (1) the violation of a federally-protected right by (2) a person or official
6
acting under the color of state law. Warner, 451 F.3d at 1067. Further, to prevail on a § 1983
7
claim, the plaintiff must establish each of the elements required to prove an infringement of the
8
underlying constitutional or statutory right.
9
B.
Personal Participation
10
In his SAC, plaintiff alleges that defendants Aranas and Cox, failed to adequately fund the
11
medical departments of NDOC facilities, thereby failing to ensure that plaintiff received adequate
12
medical care. (See ECF No. 26 at 6.) Defendants contend that plaintiff’s claim against defendants
13
Aranas and Cox must be dismissed because plaintiff fails to allege personal participation. (ECF
14
No. 32 at 3-4.) The court agrees; plaintiff’s assertions are insufficient to state a claim.
15
“Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their
16
subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. However, an official
17
acting in a supervisory capacity may be liable if he or she was personally involved in a
18
constitutional deprivation, or there is a sufficient causal connection between his or her wrongful
19
conduct and the deprivation. Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 1004–05 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing
20
Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011)). Such wrongful conduct may include “‘action or
21
inaction in the training, supervision, or control of his [or her] subordinates . . . .’” Id. (quoting
22
Watkins v. City of Oakland, 145 F.3d 1087, 1083 (9th Cir. 1998)).
23
To survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must provide more than “a formulaic
24
recitation of the elements of a cause of action. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a
25
right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint
26
are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 553 (internal citations and quotations
27
omitted).
28
3
1
Here, it is clear that plaintiff names defendants Aranas and Cox merely because they hold
2
supervisory positions. Plaintiff’s formulaic assertions fail to include specific facts to show that
3
either of the defendants knew of plaintiff’s serious medical need and disregarded it, that NDOC
4
medical departments were suffering from a lack of funding, or that defendants approve the medical
5
department budget. The SAC merely states that Aranas and Cox breached their duties by failing
6
to provide adequate funding to the medical department. Plaintiff's conclusory assertions fail
7
under Rule 12(b)(6).
8
Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff fails to allege personal participation by
9
defendants Aranas and Cox, and therefore recommends that defendants’ partial motion to dismiss
10
11
12
be granted.
Because this court finds that plaintiff failed to allege personal participation, it need not
address defendants’ qualified immunity defense.
IV.
13
14
15
CONCLUSION
For good cause appearing and for the reasons stated above, the court recommends that
defendants’ partial motion to dismiss (ECF No. 32) be granted.
16
The parties are advised:
17
1.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Rule IB 3-2 of the Local Rules of Practice,
18
the parties may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen
19
days of receipt. These objections should be entitled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and
20
Recommendation” and should be accompanied by points and authorities for consideration by the
21
District Court.
22
2.
This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order and any notice of
23
appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s
24
judgment.
V.
25
26
27
RECOMMENDATION
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that defendants’ partial motion to dismiss (ECF
No. 32) be GRANTED.
28
4
1
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that defendants Aranas and Cox be DISMISSED
2
from this action.
3
DATED: August 30, 2017.
4
______________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?