Downey v. Andrews M.D. et al
Filing
70
ORDER ADOPTING 63 Report and Recommendation. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 55 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff may proceed on his medical care claims against Defendants. All remaining claims against Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend. Defendants' motion to strike (Dkt. No. 61 ) is DENIED as moot. This matter is RE-REFERRED to Judge Donohue for further proceedings. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
DYLAN DOWNEY,
10
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. C17-0968-JCC
ORDER
v.
11
STUART ANDREWS M.D., et al.,
12
13
Defendants.
14
15
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Chief Tony Aston (“Chief Aston”)
16
and Major Jamie Kane’s (“Major Kane”) objection (Dkt. No. 64) and United States Magistrate
17
Judge James P. Donohue’s report and recommendation (Dkt. No. 63) regarding Defendants’
18
motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 55). Having thoroughly considered the briefing and relevant record,
19
the Court hereby ADOPTS the report and recommendation (Dkt. No. 63) and OVERRULES
20
Defendants’ objection (Dkt. No. 64).
21
I.
BACKGROUND 1
22
On December 28, 2016, Plaintiff Dylan Downey was booked into Snohomish County Jail
23
on a charge of vehicular assault. (Dkt. No. 54 at 3.) During his initial medical screening, Plaintiff
24
25
26
1
This section summarizes the facts as set forth in Plaintiff’s complaint, which are
assumed to be true, as is appropriate on a motion to dismiss. See Vasquez v. L.A. County, 487
F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007).
ORDER
C17-0968-JCC
PAGE - 1
1
informed jail medical staff of issues with his prosthetic leg, which no longer fit properly. (Id.)
2
Plaintiff asked to see a prosthologist before his condition deteriorated to the point where he could
3
no longer use the leg. (Id.) At subsequent appointments with jail medical personnel, Plaintiff
4
repeatedly requested to see a prosthologist. (Id. at 3–4, 6.) Plaintiff eventually filed formal
5
grievances and kites regarding the lack of treatment for his leg and unfilled requests to see a
6
prosthologist. (Id. at 6.)
7
Plaintiff was not allowed to see a prosthologist until April 13, 2017. (Id. at 7.) During this
8
appointment, Plaintiff was informed that he needed a new socket and other adjustments to
9
correct the fit. (Id.) Jail officials instructed the prosthologist not to do so. (Id.) Following the
10
appointment, Plaintiff continued to inform the jail medical personnel of the pain caused by the
11
ill-fitting prosthetic. (Id. at 7–9.) Plaintiff wrote two times to Chief Aston, Bureau Chief of
12
Snohomish County Sherriff’s Office – Corrections Bureau, for assistance. (Id. at 10.) The Chief
13
did not act upon Plaintiff’s requests. (Id.) Instead, he merely claimed not to “concur” with
14
Plaintiff’s claims of deliberate indifference. (Id.) Plaintiff also wrote to Major Kane, Corrections
15
Deputy at Snohomish County Jail. (Id.) Major Kane never responded to Plaintiff’s requests or
16
any of the grievances assigned to him. (Id.)
17
Plaintiff brings this 42 U.S.C. section 1983 civil rights action against Chief Aston and
18
Major Kane (collectively “Defendants”), Snohomish County, and other jail medical staff and
19
administrators. (Dkt. No. 54.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his Eighth and
20
Fourteenth Amendment rights through their deliberate indifference to his need for adequate
21
medical care. (Id. at 14.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants are liable as superiors for the
22
actions of the Jail medical staff’s Equal Protection and Due Process violations, along with
23
violations of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. Section 1201, et seq.
24
(“ADA”), the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, and state and local laws. (Id. at 16–18.) Plaintiff
25
also alleges Defendants created unconstitutional conditions of confinement and committed
26
violations of state laws including “medical malpractice, collusion in the perpetration of fraud,
ORDER
C17-0968-JCC
PAGE - 2
1
fraud, negligence, violations of the WA State Disability Act, and any applicable violations of the
2
Revised Code of Washington.” (Id. at 17–18.) Defendants move to dismiss all claims against
3
them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 55.) Judge Donohue
4
recommends that all claims against Chief Aston and Major Kane be dismissed except for
5
Plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference. (Dkt. No. 64.) Defendants object to Judge Donohue’s
6
recommendation not to dismiss Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim. (Id.)
7
II.
DISCUSSION
8
A.
Legal Standard
9
Objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendations are reviewed de novo. 28
10
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A defendant may move to dismiss a complaint when a plaintiff “fails to state
11
a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[T]he pleading standard
12
Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an
13
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
14
678 (2009). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to
15
state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Id. at 677–78. A claim is facially plausible
16
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the Court to draw the reasonable inference
17
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 678.
18
B.
19
Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support his deliberate
Deliberate Indifference
20
indifference claim. (Dkt. No. 64 at 2, 6.) Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s claim of
21
deliberate indifference under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 should be dismissed for failing to state a
22
legally cognizable claim because the statute does not allow for a respondeat superior theory of
23
liability. (Id. at 6.)
24
A prisoner can establish an Eighth Amendment violation arising from inadequate medical
25
care by showing “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs” by prison officials through
26
acts or omissions. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Supervisors may be held liable on
ORDER
C17-0968-JCC
PAGE - 3
1
a deliberate indifference claim “for [their] own culpable action or inaction,” based upon “the
2
supervisors’ knowledge of and acquiescence in unconstitutional conduct by his or her
3
subordinates.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011). To be liable, the supervisor’s
4
involvement “could include his own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision, or
5
control of his subordinates, his acquiescence in the constitutional deprivations of which the
6
complaint is made, or conduct that showed a reckless or callous indifference to the rights of
7
others.” Id. at 1205-06 (internal quotations omitted).
8
9
In Starr, a prisoner adequately pled a claim of supervisor liability for deliberate
indifference based on the complaint’s numerous allegations of notice to a Sherriff of his
10
subordinates’ culpable actions in the injuries and deaths of inmates and the Sherriff’s inaction.
11
Id. at 1216. Defendants argue that this case is distinguishable and that Plaintiff’s claim is more
12
like the “bald and conclusory allegations” that the Ninth Circuit has found to be insufficient to
13
support a deliberate indifference claim. (Dkt. No. 64 at 2–3) (citing Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d
14
937, 942 (9th Cir. 2012)). In Hydrick, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a supervisor
15
theory liability when the plaintiff alleged the defendants had “personal knowledge of retaliation”
16
against him but pled no facts regarding Defendant’s purported knowledge of the retaliation. Id. at
17
942.
18
Unlike in Hydrick, here Plaintiff has pled facts demonstrating Defendants’ knowledge
19
and inaction regarding the alleged deliberate indifference of the jail personnel. Plaintiff alleges
20
that he wrote Defendants on multiple occasions regarding his need for medical treatment and that
21
the jail medical staff did not help him. (Dkt. No. 54 at 10.) Nevertheless, neither Defendant acted
22
upon Plaintiff’s requests. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he wrote Chief Aston twice, and that the
23
Chief took no action to respond to Plaintiff’s requests other than to say that he did not “concur”
24
with Plaintiff’s allegations. (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges to have written Major Kane, and that the
25
Major did not respond or take any action. (Id.) This is sufficient for the Court to draw a
26
reasonable inference that Defendants knew and “acquiesce[ed] in unconstitutional conduct by
ORDER
C17-0968-JCC
PAGE - 4
1
[their] subordinates.” Starr, 652 F.3d at 1207.
2
Accepting as true all factual allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court finds that
3
Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged facts regarding Defendants’ deliberate indifference claim
4
against Chief Aston and Major Kane. Accordingly, Defendants’ objection to Judge Donohue’s
5
report and recommendation is OVERRULED.
6
III.
CONCLUSION
7
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows:
8
(1)
The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.
(2)
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 55) is GRANTED in part and DENIED
9
10
in part. Plaintiff may proceed on his medical care claims against Defendants. All remaining
11
12
claims against Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend.
13
(3)
Defendants’ motion to strike (Dkt. No. 61) is DENIED as moot.
14
(4)
This matter is RE-REFERRED to Judge Donohue for further proceedings.
15
(5)
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this Order to the parties and to Judge
16
Donohue.
17
18
DATED this 9th day of July 2018.
19
A
20
21
22
John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C17-0968-JCC
PAGE - 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?