Opinion
3:23-cv-00813-SB
07-14-2023
SAMUEL BUCHANAN, Plaintiff, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
HON. STACIE F. BECKERMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Samuel Buchanan (“Buchanan”), a self-represented adult in custody (“AIC”) of the Oregon Department of Corrections (“ODOC”), filed this action in state court on April 10, 2023, against ODOC, alleging claims related to ODOC's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. (See ECF No. 1-2.) ODOC removed the action to this Court on June 5, 2023. (See ECF No. 1-1.) The Court certified a federal class action alleging similar claims in Maney et al. v. Brown et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-00570-SB.
Now before the Court is ODOC's motion to dismiss Buchanan's claims under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6). (See Def.'s Mot. Dismiss (“Def.'s Mot.”), ECF No. 6.) The Court has jurisdiction over Buchanan's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367, but not all parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636. For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends that the district judge grant ODOC's motion to dismiss.
Buchanan pleads these facts in his complaint and the Court assumes they are true for the purpose of deciding this motion. See Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that when reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a court must “accept as true all well-pleaded allegations of material fact, and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party”).
In his complaint, Buchanan alleges that he “was housed in C[OVID]-19 conditions” and that ODOC “failed to provide safe and adequate levels of care” and as a result, Buchanan “caught C[OVID-19] not once but multiple times in 2020, and again one year later in 2022[.]” (Compl. at 3.) Based on those allegations, Buchanan alleges that ODOC violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and that ODOC was negligent in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. (See generally Compl.)
LEGAL STANDARDS
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “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.” Id. “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.” Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell, 845 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
DISCUSSION
I. FAILURE TO OPT OUT OF CLASS ACTION
ODOC argues that the Court should dismiss Buchanan's claims because, inter alia, “Buchanan is an eligible class member who received notice in Maney.” (Def.'s Mot. at 3.) Buchanan failed to respond to ODOC's motion to dismiss. However, taken as true, Buchanan's allegations confirm that he is a member of the Damages Class in the Maney class action. See Maney v. State, No. 6:20-cv-00570-SB, 2022 WL 986580, at *26 (D. Or. Apr. 1, 2022) (granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and defining the “Damages Class” as “[a]ll adults incarcerated in [ODOC] facilities who: (1) were incarcerated on or after February 1, 2020; (2) while incarcerated, tested positive or were otherwise diagnosed with COVID-19; and (3) if they became incarcerated after February 1, 2020, tested positive or were otherwise diagnosed with COVID-19 at least fourteen days after they entered Oregon Department of Corrections custody”).
Based on Buchanan's status as a Maney class member, the Court cannot allow this case to proceed because it would lead to “concurrent litigation and potentially inconsistent results.” Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1137 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[A] district court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction over a[n AIC's] claim . . . where the allegations and relief sought are duplicative of” a related class action because “[i]n that situation, the avoidance of concurrent litigation and potentially inconsistent results justifies dismissal”) (citation omitted); see also Melnichuk v. Wolf et al., No. 120CV00654JLTHC, 2020 WL 4193458, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 21, 2020) (granting the defendants' motion to dismiss because the plaintiff “invoked[d] the same cause of action and requested relief” and “allege[d] the same facts” related to, inter alia, conditions of confinement and “other health and safety precautions to mitigate the spread of COVID-19” as those in a related class action); Allen v. Crandel, No. C 95-0673 VRW, 1995 WL 392525, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 1995) (dismissing the plaintiff's claims related to his conditions of confinement because the plaintiff was a class member of a “pending class action lawsuit” addressing the same issues).
Based on Buchanan's status as a Maney class member and because his claims are duplicative of those raised in Maney, the Court recommends that the district judge dismiss Buchanan's claims.
II. FUTILITY OF AMENDMENT
ODOC argues that amendment of Buchanan's complaint would be futile because “any amendment to allege exclusion from the Damages Class [in Maney] would fail to state a claim and be subject to outright dismissal.” (Def.'s Mot. at 9.)
“In determining whether to grant leave to amend, the district court considers the presence of any of the following four factors: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, and (4) futility.” Tadros v. Wilmington Tr., Nat'l Ass'n as Tr. to Citibank, N.A., No. 3:17-cv-01623-AA, 2018 WL 5298144, at *2 (D. Or. Oct. 25, 2018) (citing Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)); see also Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting that courts should weigh the relevant factors “with all inferences in favor of granting the motion”). “Futility of amendment, however, ‘can, by itself, justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend.'” Id. (citing Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995)). “A proposed amendment is futile if it would not withstand a motion to dismiss.” Id. (citation omitted).
The Court agrees that amending the complaint would be futile here because, as discussed above, any attempt by Buchanan to amend his complaint would be subject to dismissal because Buchanan's claims are duplicative of those raised in Maney, and because Buchanan failed to opt out of the class. See, e.g., Dinkins v. United States, No. 221CV06991CASKES, 2022 WL 15526472, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. 221CV06991CASKES, 2022 WL 15525741 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2022) (dismissing the plaintiff AIC's COVID-19 related claims “as duplicative of the [pending] class action” and finding that “th[e] action raises the same claims and seeks the same relief as the [pending] action” and that the plaintiff, “identified as a member of the [pending] class [] will litigate his claims in that action”); see also Bennett v. Asuncion, No. 116CV1749AWIMJSPC, 2018 WL 1392894, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2018) (“If the allegations and relief sought are duplicative of the class action, ‘avoidance of concurrent litigation and potentially inconsistent results justifies dismissal.'” (quoting Pride, 719 F.3d at 1137)). Accordingly, the Court finds that amending Buchanan's complaint would be futile.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the Court recommends that the district judge GRANT ODOC's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6), and dismiss Buchanan's claims without leave to amend but without prejudice to membership in the Maney class action.
SCHEDULING ORDER
The Court will refer its Findings and Recommendation to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due within fourteen (14) days. If no objections are filed, the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that date. If objections are filed, a response is due within fourteen (14) days. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.