Opinion
Case No. 18-01637 EJD (PR)
04-01-2019
JAMES R. KNOWLES, Plaintiff, v. NAPA STATE HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND OF SERVICE; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical staff at the Napa State Hospital ("NHS"). The Court deemed the amended complaint filed on July 20, 2018, as the operative complaint and conducted an initial screening. (Docket No. 50.) The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to file a second amended complaint, to attempt to state a cognizable claim against supervisor defendants. (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. (Docket No. 55.) /// ///
This matter was reassigned to this Court on April 10, 2018. (Docket Nos. 8 & 9.)
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). B. Plaintiff's Claims
Plaintiff claims that since his arrival at NHS in April 2012, Dr. Michelle Martin, Dr. Michael Glasser, Dr. Surulinathan Sanmakan, and Dr. Chong Yang have been illegally drugging him without his consent, (Docket No. 55 at 3, 7-13), which he alleges amounts to aggravated assault and battery, and that their actions resulted in great bodily injury, including diabetes type 2, loss of vision, fibromyalgia diabetes, neuropathy, loss of memory, and psychological and physical injury, (id. at 5). Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief. (Id. at 14.)
Plaintiff's claim that he does not suffer from a mental illness and therefore should not have been forced to take psychotropic drugs, liberally construed, states a claim for the violation of his liberty interest in freedom from unwanted antipsychotic drugs. See Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221-22 (1990); United States v. Ruiz-Gaxiola, 623 F.3d 684, 691 (9th Cir. 2010). Although Plaintiff does not specifically identify Drs. Martin, Glasser, Sanmakan, and Yang as Defendants in this action, his allegations indicate that their alleged actions directly resulted in the violation of Plaintiff's due process rights. Accordingly, the Court will liberally construe the complaint as naming them as Defendants in this matter.
On the other hand, the second amended complaint expressly identifies two Defendants: Pamela Ahlin, the Executive Director of Napa State Hospital who is "responsible for the overall[l] operation of Napa State Hospital under its jurisdiction, including for the welfare of all the patients," and Dr. Amarpreet Singh, the attending doctor for Plaintiff who is "responsible for the care of patients on Unit T-12 at Napa State Hospital." (Docket No. 55 at 5.) However, Plaintiff makes no specific factual allegations against Director Ahlin. (Id. at 6-13.) Furthermore, the only factual allegations against Dr. Singh is that he had a "few meetings" with Plaintiff to discuss treatment, and that he allegedly asserted in the last meeting "that patient is okay with out psychotropic medications," (id. at 12), which does not indicate that Dr. Singh was responsible for or endorsed Plaintiff being forcefully drugged. By his description of their positions at the Hospital, Plaintiff appears to be attempting to hold these Defendants liable based on their supervisory positions.
Plaintiff was already advised of the standard for stating supervisor liability. (Docket No. 50 at 3-4.) "In a § 1983 or a Bivens action - where masters do not answer for the torts of their servants - the term 'supervisory liability' is a misnomer. Absent vicarious liability, each Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own misconduct." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009). A supervisor may be liable under section 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012). However, under no circumstances is there respondeat superior liability under section 1983. Or, in layman's terms, under no circumstances is there liability under section 1983 solely because one is responsible for the actions or omissions of another. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 680-81 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff has already been advised of this standard for stating a claim of supervisory liability. (Docket No. 50 at 3-4.) Here, Plaintiff has again failed to allege sufficient facts to show that Defendants Ahlin and Singh are liable as supervisors based on their personal involvement or a causal connection because their wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Willden, 678 F.3d at 1003-04. Plaintiff shall not be afforded another opportunity to do so. See Wagh v. Metris Direct, Inc., 363 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 2003); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, Defendants Ahlin and Singh are DISMISSED from this action for failure to state a claim against them.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons state above, the Court orders as follows:
1. Defendants Pamela Ahlin and Dr. Amarpreet Singh are DISMISSED from this action for failure to state a claim against them. The Clerk shall terminate them from this action.
2. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy of the second amended complaint, (Docket No. 55), all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Defendants Dr. Michelle Martin, Dr. Michael Glasser, Dr. Surulinathan Sanmakan, and Dr. Chong Yang at the Napa State Hospital (2100 Napa Vallejo Hwy, Napa, CA 94558-6293). The Clerk shall also mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
3. Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires them to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and the amended complaint. Pursuant to Rule 4, if Defendants, after being notified of this action and asked by the Court, on behalf of Plaintiff, to waive service of the summons, fail to do so, they will be required to bear the cost of such service unless good cause shown for their failure to sign and return the waiver form. If service is waived, this action will proceed as if Defendants had been served on the date that the waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), Defendants will not be required to serve and file an answer before sixty (60) days from the day on which the request for waiver was sent. (This allows a longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of summons is necessary.) Defendants are asked to read the statement set forth at the foot of the waiver form that more completely describes the duties of the parties with regard to waiver of service of the summons. If service is waived after the date provided in the Notice but before Defendants have been personally served, the Answer shall be due sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for waiver was sent or twenty (20) days from the date the waiver form is filed, whichever is later.
4. No later than ninety-one (91) days from the date this order is filed, Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claims in the amended complaint found to be cognizable above.
a. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any Defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due.
b. In the event Defendants file a motion for summary judgment, the Ninth Circuit has held that Plaintiff must be concurrently provided the appropriate warnings under Rand v. Rowland , 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). See Woods v. Carey , 684 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2012).
5. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date Defendants' motion is filed.
Plaintiff is also advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party opposing summary judgment must come forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment may be deemed to be a consent by Plaintiff to the granting of the motion, and granting of judgment against Plaintiff without a trial. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994).
6. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after Plaintiff's opposition is filed.
7. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date.
8. All communications by the Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendants, or Defendants' counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendants or Defendants' counsel.
9. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery.
10. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
11. Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. /// ///
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 4 /1 /2019
/s/_________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge