STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
This action was filed on October 28, 2013. Currently before the Court are two motions to dismiss filed on May 5, 2014.
Plaintiffs Corey Lamar Smith, Dion Barnett, Christopher Garner, Rodney Ray Roberts, Jeremy Romo, and Danny Dallas ("Plaintiffs") filed a complaint in this action against Defendants Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jeffrey A. Beard, Paul D. Brazelton, Matthew Cate, J. Clark Kelso, James D. Hartley, Susan L. Hubbard, Deborah Hysen, Dr. Felix Igbinosa, Tanya Rothchild, State of California, Dr. Dwight Winslow, James A. Yates, and Edmund G. Brown in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California on October 28, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) On January 16, 2014, this action was transferred to the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 7.) On January 28, 2014 an order issued relating this action to
On March 27, 2014, this action was related to
On May 5, 2014, Defendants Beard Brazelton, Brown, Cate, Hartley, Hubbard, Rothchild, Schwarzenegger, and Yates filed a motion to dismiss and request for judicial notice. (ECF Nos. 37, 38.) On this same date, Defendants Igbinosa and Winslow filed a motion to dismiss and a notice of joinder in the motion to dismiss filed by the co-defendants. (ECF Nos. 39, 40.)
On May 9, 2014, the Court issued an order to show cause why this action should not be consolidated with the related cases. (ECF No. 42.) On May 20, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of Defendant Kelso. (ECF No. 46.)
On May 21, 2014, responses to the order to show cause were filed. (ECF No. 47, 48.) On May 22, 2014, Defendant Kelso was dismissed without prejudice and an additional response to the order to show cause was filed by Defendants Kelso and Winslow. (ECF Nos. 49, 51.) On May 28, 2014, Defendants filed an opposition to the order to show cause response. (ECF No. 53.) On May 29, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of related case and Defendant Hysen filed a notice of joinder in Defendants' motion to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 54, 55.) On May 30, 2014, an order was signed relating this action to
Plaintiffs filed two oppositions to the motions to dismiss on June 4, 2014. (ECF Nos. 61, 62.) On June 11, 2014, Defendants Beard, Brazelton, Brown, Cate, Hartley, Hubbard, Hysen, Rothchild, Schwarzenegger, and Yates filed a reply, and Defendants Igbinosa and Winslow filed a reply and notice of joinder in co-defendants reply. (ECF Nos. 67, 65, 66.)
The Court heard oral arguments on June 18, 2014. (ECF No. 68.) Counsel Benjamin Pavone appeared telephonically and counsel Gregg Zucker and David Elliot appeared for Plaintiffs; counsel Michelle Angus appeared for Defendants Schwarzenegger, Beard, Brazelton, Cate, Hartley, Hubbard, Hysen, Rothchild, Yates, and Brown; and counsel Susan Coleman appeared for Defendants Igbinosa and Winslow.
Plaintiffs state that Coccidioidomycosis ("Valley Fever") is carried by organisms that live in the soil in certain limited geographic areas. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 14.) Most individuals who contract Valley Fever have no symptoms or mild to moderate flu-like symptoms. (
Plaintiffs to this action are inmates or former inmates of the state correctional system that contracted Valley Fever. (
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Schwarzenegger was the Governor of California from 2003 through 2011 when the Valley Fever epidemic began and it sharply escalated during that time period. (
Defendant Brown, the current Governor of California, continued the state policies and practices put in place by Defendant Schwarzenegger. (
Defendant Beard is the current Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). (
Defendant Cate was the Secretary of CDCR from 2008 through 2012. (
Defendant Hubbard is the former Director of CDCR's Division of Adult Operations and was personally involved in the decision to adopt a policy that continued to allow Plaintiffs to be housed in hyper-endemic prisons. (
Defendant Rothchild is the former Chief of CDCR's Classification Services Unit ("CSU"). (
Defendant Hysen is the Chief Deputy Secretary of the CDCR Executive Office of Facility Planning, Construction and Management. (
Defendant Meyer is Senior Chief of CDCR Executive Office of Facility Planning, Construction and Management. (
Defendant Winslow is the former Statewide Medical Director for CDCR. (
Defendant Brazelton was Warden of Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP") from summer of 2012 to fall of 2013. (
Defendant Yates was the Warden of PVSP from 2005 through 2012. (
Defendant Hartley is the current Warden at Avenal State Prison ("ASP"). (
Defendant Igbinosa is the Medical Director at PVSP. (
Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have had notice of the risk of Valley Fever for over fifty years based upon publications in the American Journal of Public Health. (
In November 2004, Renee Kanan, Deputy Director of Health Care Services, wrote a memo to all health care managers, staff and CDCR officials regarding Valley Fever and its origin in soil. (
In 2005, PVSP began to experience an epidemic of Valley Fever. (
In 2005 a prisoner rights group sent an informational briefing to Defendant Schwarzenegger describing the threat of Valley Fever and the threat to African-Americans, Filipinos, elderly inmates, and the immune-compromised. (
After the 2005 outbreak at PVSP, California Corrections Health Care Services ("CCHCS") requested and received assistance from the California Department of Public Health ("CDPH") in assessing and controlling cocci at PVSP. (
An August 2006 internal memorandum confirmed that Defendants were aware that inmates were being housed in hyper-endemic locations. (
Following the start of construction, the number of Valley Fever cases increased. (
In 2006 and 2007, a Fresno County Grand Jury evaluated inmate health status at PVSP and made a series of recommendations. (
In January 2007, a study by the California Department of Public Health, Center for Infectious Disease was published. (
In a January 11, 2007 memo to the CDCR, the Department of Public Health ("DPH") informed the CDCR that studies have suggested that the risk of complications is increased for individuals of African or Filipino descent and heavily immuno-suppressed individuals. (
In June 2007, CCHCS issued recommendations, including landscaping with ground cover and concrete, diverting and relocating inmates at high risk, and not expanding prison beds in the hyper-endemic areas, especially at PVSP. (
In September 2007, Defendant Schwarzenegger proposed that California construct new dormitories at PVSP to expand the number of prisoners housed there. (
In November 2007, prison officials issued a formal exclusion policy for inmates with certain medical conditions, but did not include inmates at high risk due to their ethnicity or race. (
During 2007, Defendant Yates was quoted in an article by the New York Times as stating that inmates and staff at PVSP contracted Valley Fever from breathing the spores in the air as they walk around. (
After a federal health agency project was terminated, in December 2009 officials from the Centers for Disease Control and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health wrote letters to the CDCR stating that African-American, Asian or Filipino, or immuno-compromised individuals were at a greater risk of developing disseminated infection. (
In 2011, CDCR sprayed a temporary sealant on some soils at PVSP. (
In April 2012, the CCHCS released a report finding that CDCR had done nothing between 2006 and 2010 that had any effect on cocci incidence rates at PVSP and ASP. (
In November 2012, the court-appointed receiver managing the prison health care system issued a recommendation. (
In March 2013, CDCR installed dust control devices, such as air filters and door sweeps, in some prison facilities. (
CDCR publishes an orientation manual for all medical personnel that discusses the Coccidioiditis epidemic in detail and notes that African-Americans, Filipinos, and those with compromised immune systems or chronic diseases are at an increased risk of contracting Valley Fever. (
Plaintiffs allege that the exposure to dangerous conditions subjects them to cruel and unusual punishment and exhibited deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and is negligence under California law. (
Plaintiff Barnett is a thirty-six year old African-American male who was paroled in 2013. (
Plaintiff Dallas is a fifty-four year old African-American male who was released from custody on June 11, 2013. (
Plaintiff Garner is a thirty-eight year old part African-American, part Asian. (
Plaintiff Roberts is a thirty year old part African-American. (
Plaintiff Romo is a thirty-three year old Hispanic male who has been released from custody. (
Plaintiff Smith is a thirty-seven year old African-American who was transferred to PVSP in 2009, and diagnosed with Valley Fever in December 2011. (
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may file a motion to dismiss on the grounds that a complaint "fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). "[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."
In deciding whether a complaint states a claim, the Ninth Circuit has found that two principles apply. First, to be entitled to the presumption of truth the allegations in the complaint "may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action, but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively."
All defendants appearing move to dismiss this action under Rule 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the complaint 1) fails to allege any Defendant personally caused the alleged constitutional deprivations; 2) fails to state sufficient facts to demonstrate deliberate indifference on the part of any Defendant; 3) Plaintiffs Garner, Roberts, and Smith's claims for future medical care are not ripe; 4) the complaint includes misjoined parties and claims; 5) Plaintiffs failed to comply with the Government Tort Claim Act; and 6) the complaint violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Defs. Beard, Brazelton, Brown, Cate, Hartley, Hubbard, Rothchild, Schwarzenegger and Yates' Mot. to Dismiss 1-2, ECF No. 37.) Similarly, Defendants Igbinosa and Winslow move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the complaint fails to show that they personally violated the constitution. (Defs. Igbinosa and Winslow's Mot. to Dismiss Pls.' First Am. Compl. 9-13, ECF No. 39.)
Plaintiffs oppose the motions arguing that the complaint is sufficiently detailed to survive a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs can bring a claim for future medical care, Defendants failure to comply with Government Code Section 53501 excuses Plaintiffs from the requirement that they submit claim forms to the Victim Compensation Board, and the parties are properly joined in this action. (Pls.' Opp. to Defense 12(b)(6) Mot. 13-31, ECF No. 61; Pls.' Opp. to Defs. Igbinosa and Winslow's Mot. to Dismiss 10-13, ECF No. 55.)
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' first amended complaint fails to state a claim as it does not allege that Defendants personally violated the United States Constitution. (ECF No. 37-1 at 11-14.) Plaintiffs counter that the complaint contains sufficiently detailed facts to state a claim against the defendants in this action. (ECF No. 61 at 13-16.)
Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff's constitutional or other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law.
Under section 1983, liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel for the actions or omissions of their subordinates under the theory of
During the June 18, 2014 hearing defense counsel argued that the present allegations are sufficient to state a claim where they are plausible and under
Defense counsel also argued that the court should allow the complaint to go forward on what the Court deems are conclusory allegations to allow discovery to determine if the defendants could be liable for the conduct alleged. However, when the allegations in the complaint do not state a claim for relief the court is to address the deficiency to avoid the expenditure of time and money by the parties and the court.
Plaintiffs appear to be blurring the line between official capacity and personal capacity lawsuits and are attempting to bring claims against current officials based solely on their position and the policies and procedures put in place by their predecessors.
Plaintiffs contend that Defendants Beard and Brazelton had knowledge of the risk of Valley Fever due to the Grand Jury reports. However, the complaint fails to allege when these reports were provided to Defendants Beard and Brazelton. Additionally, the complaint does not identify the position at CDCR that these defendants held during the time period in which Plaintiffs contracted Valley Fever. Therefore, there is no information contained in the complaint from which the Court can infer that Defendants Beard or Brazelton were liable for the policy to house high risk inmates in the hyper-endemic area. Absent such factual allegations the complaint is insufficient to link Defendants Beard or Brazelton to the alleged violations.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Beard is the current Secretary of the CDCR being appointed to the position in December 2012. (ECF No. 14 at ¶ 20.) All Plaintiffs to this action contracted Valley Fever between August 2011 and December 2012, prior to Defendant Beard becoming the Secretary. (
Further, Defendant Brazelton was the Warden of PVSP from summer 2012 to fall of 2013. (
Plaintiffs complaint fails to contain allegations to state a plausible claim that Defendants Beard and Brazelton's actions after they were appointed as the Secretary of CDCR or Warden of PVSP contributed to the plaintiffs injuries. Absent such factual allegations the complaint is insufficient to link Defendants Beard or Brazelton to the alleged violations. The motion to dismiss Defendant Beard and Brazelton should be granted.
Despite Plaintiffs' allegations that prison officials have known of the risk of Valley Fever for over 50 years, the fact that medical journals have published articles does not show that the risk was evident to Defendants in this action. Based on the allegations in the complaint, it was not until 2004 that a memo was provided to officials within the prison system which mentioned that the risk of disseminated disease was highest in certain individuals. (
While Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Hubbard, Rothchild, Hysen, and Hartley had knowledge of the risks of Valley Fever to specific classes of inmates, the amended complaint fails to allege that they held an office during the time period at issue in this action. For instance, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Hubbard was the former director of CDCR's Division of Adult Operations and issued a memo in November 2007 that "continued to allow Plaintiffs and others who were members of high-risk groups to be housed in hyper-endemic prisons." (ECF No. 14 at ¶ 23.)
However, the complaint does not allege that Defendant Hubbard was involved in the adoption of the policy that failed to exclude those inmates at high risk of developing disseminated disease; nor does the complaint specify when she held this position; if she continued to hold the position as more information became available as to the extent of the risk to inmates in these high risk categories; or if Defendant Hubbard was director when any of these inmates were housed at the subject prisons. Plaintiffs' allegation that Defendant Hubbard issued a memo which continued to allow inmates to be housed at the prisons is insufficient to show that Defendant Hubbard was liable for the policy that injured Plaintiffs in this action.
Similarly, the complaint fails to allege any information from which the Court can infer that Defendants Rothchild, Hysen, Meyer, or Hartley held the position stated in the complaint at the time that Plaintiffs were subject to the violations alleged in the complaint. To the extent that Plaintiffs attempt to assert that the policies continue to violate the Constitution, Plaintiffs in this action are no longer at risk of contracting Valley Fever. Even if the policy has been continued by a successor, Plaintiffs do not state a claim against current CDCR officials who were not involved in the policy prior to the plaintiff being injured. Plaintiff may not state a claim against current officials where their conduct did not cause or contribute to a completed constitutional violation that occurred in the past.
Plaintiffs' complaint fails to state a claim against Defendants Hubbard, Rothchild, Hysen, or Hartley; and the Court recommends that the motion to dismiss be granted as to these defendants.
While Defendants argue that the complaint fails to allege that any defendant personally participated in any act or failure to act that harmed Plaintiffs, "[t]he law clearly allows actions against supervisors under section 1983 as long as a sufficient causal connection is present and the plaintiff was deprived under color of law of a federally secured right." Starr, 652 F.3d at 1207 (quoting
To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison conditions must involve "the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain."
Plaintiffs allege that they have been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by the policies and procedures allowing them to be housed in a hyper-endemic region and they subsequently contracted Valley Fever. The Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protects prisoners not only from inhumane methods of punishment but also from inhumane conditions of confinement.
The Court shall first address the substantial risk of harm prong of the deliberate indifference analysis.
Defendants argue that no court has held that exposure to Valley Fever, in and of itself, presents a substantial risk to an inmate's health. The Court agrees that merely being exposed to an area, even a hyper-endemic area, by itself does not constitute an excessive risk of harm.
However, the complaint alleges sufficient facts to allege that African-Americans, Filipinos and other Asians, Hispanics, and American Indians, as well as individuals with compromised immune systems, were at a substantial risk of developing disseminated infection which causes life threating pneumonia or blood-borne spread of the fungus to other parts of the body and can be fatal.
Plaintiffs have set forth numerous publications by the CDCR and related public entities which were provided to Defendants Schwarzenegger, Yates and Cate in this action placing them on notice that certain individuals were at a significant risk of contracting Valley Fever and having it develop into the disseminated form of the disease by virtue of their race, national origin, or because they had a compromised immune system. This is sufficient to show that these defendants knew that African-Americans, Filipinos and other Asians, Hispanics, and American Indians, as well as those who are immune-compromised or immune-suppressed were at a significantly increased risk of contracting the disseminated form of Valley Fever.
Armed with such knowledge, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants Schwarzenegger, Yates and Cate failed to adopt a policy of excluding these high risk inmates from being housed in the hyper-endemic area or moving high risk inmates out of the hyper-endemic area. Defendants argue that the complaint fails to allege that the defendants personally caused the injury to Plaintiffs and cannot state a claim for deliberate indifference because the defendants were unaware of the details of the plaintiffs' incarceration, medical conditions or increased risk of Valley Fever. However, "when a supervisory official advances or manages a policy that instructs its adherents to violate constitutional rights, then the official specifically intends for such violations to occur. Claims against such supervisory officials, therefore, do not fail on the state of mind requirement, be it intent, knowledge, or deliberate indifference."
Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant Schwarzenegger was aware of the risk to these inmates housed at PVSP as early as 2005 when a prisoner rights group sent him an informational packet describing the threat posed to these high risk inmates by Valley Fever. (ECF No. 14 at ¶ 102.) Yet, despite this knowledge, Plaintiffs allege that in 2007 Defendant Schwarzenegger proposed that new dormitories be constructed at PVSP increasing the number of prisoners that could be housed there by 600. (
While Plaintiffs' amended complaint demonstrates that Defendant Schwarzenegger was or should have been aware of the threat to high risk inmates, the allegations in the complaint fail to show that he had any personal involvement in the policies that allowed such high risk inmates to be housed at PVSP or ASP. Plaintiffs' contend that Defendant Schwarzenegger "condoned subordinates' actions", however, there are no allegations in the complaint that Defendant Schwarzenegger was aware of the specific inmates that were being housed at these prisons or was responsible for promulgating the policies.
Defendant Schwarzenegger is not liable for the policies of the CDCR where he did not participate in or direct the violations, nor knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.
Plaintiffs contend that statements made by Defendant Schwarzenegger during press conferences exhibit deliberate indifference to their substantial risk of harm. However, the statements made by Defendant Schwarzenegger merely show that he was aware that there was generally a risk of Valley Fever. Defendant Schwarzenegger's alleged comments during press conferences do not show that Defendant Schwarzenegger was aware that high risk inmates were being housed at Corcoran, PVSP, or CCI and thereby exposed to a substantial risk of serious harm. . The fact that Defendant Schwarzenegger made comments showing that he was aware of the risk of Valley Fever alone is not sufficient to state a claim that Defendant Schwarzenegger was deliberately indifferent to the risk to Plaintiffs in this action. The Court recommends that the motion to dismiss Defendant Schwarzenegger be granted.
Plaintiffs allege that in 2007 the Fresno Grand Jury investigation informed Defendants Cate, and Yates of the incidence of Valley Fever at PVSP and the increased risk to African-Americans, Hispanics, and Filipinos and other Asians. (
The allegations contained in the first amended complaint are sufficient to state a claim against Defendants Cate and Yates for deliberate indifference to conditions of confinement by allowing these high risk categories of inmates to be housed at prisons in the endemic and hyperendemic area. The Court recommends that Defendants' motion to dismiss Defendants Cate and Yates be denied.
Plaintiffs contend that Defendant Winslow was the former Statewide Medical Director for CDCR and authored a memo in June 2007 disclosing that CDCR was aware of the greatly increased risk of infection in the hyper-endemic areas and that the risk was multiplied several times over for certain ethnic groups. (
While Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Winslow personally participated in CDCR's adoption of policies that allowed high risk inmates to continue to be transferred to these prisons, there are no facts alleged in the amended complaint to support such a conclusory allegation. Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts to show that Defendant Winslow was personally involved in adopting or implementing the policies which are being challenged in this action.
Further, Plaintiffs contend that Dr. Winslow issued a memorandum in November 2007 that did not include recommend excluding all African-American, Hispanic, Filipino and other Asian inmates. However, in June 2007 Defendant Winslow issued a memorandum making recommendations to reduce the infection rate inside the prison. Deliberate indifference occurs where the official fails to address a substantial risk of harm to the inmates.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Igbinosa was the medical director at PVSP during the time period relevant to this complaint. (
While Plaintiffs contend that Defendant Igbinosa failed to establish a screening policy to identify high risk inmates, given the CDCR policy that existed at the time, instituting a policy to screen inmates would not have resulted in Plaintiffs being transferred from PVSP. Plaintiffs' complaint fails to allege any facts from which the Court may infer that Defendant Igbinosa was responsible for the policy of housing high risk inmates at PVSP or had any authority, by virtue of his position as medical director at the prison, to have inmates transferred to another prison due to being at high risk of contracting disseminated disease.
Further, Plaintiffs' conclusory statement that Defendant Igbinosa was aware of the incidence rate of Valley Fever and medical risks and failed to take actions to address the epidemic or reduce inmates expose to disease fails to show state a plausible claim that Defendant Igbinosa failed to respond to a serious medical need. Plaintiffs' complaint specifically alleges that Plaintiffs should not have been transferred to PVSP or should have been transferred from PVSP. As discussed, the complaint fails to show that Defendant Igbinosa was responsible for transfer decisions or the CDCR policy. Plaintiffs fail to include any allegations that Defendant Igbinosa had the ability to protect Plaintiffs from expose to Valley Fever and failed to do so.
Plaintiffs fail to state a cognizable claim and the Court recommends that Defendants' motion to dismiss Defendant Igbinosa be granted.
Plaintiffs also contend that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs by transferring them to an area where they were exposed to Valley Fever. In the context of deliberate indifference to medical needs, deliberate indifference is shown where the official is aware of a serious medical need and fails to adequately respond.
Deliberate indifference may be manifested "when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment," or in the manner "in which prison physicians provide medical care."
In the opposition to the motion, Plaintiffs argue that they did not receive appropriate care for their Valley Fever; however these allegations are not set forth in the complaint. While some plaintiffs do allege a period of time passed between their symptoms beginning and being formally diagnosed and treated, Plaintiffs have not linked this delay to any defendant named in this action. Nor have Plaintiffs linked any named defendant to any complications that they suffered due to any alleged treatment received while incarcerated. As alleged in the complaint, Plaintiffs' claim is deliberate indifference to conditions of confinement. Plaintiffs fail to state a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim and the motion to dismiss this claim should be granted.
Defendants contend that since Plaintiffs Garner, Roberts, and Smith are still in custody their claim for the cost of on-going medical care is not ripe. Plaintiffs counter that their claims are ripe as they have contracted Valley Fever and therefore have demonstrated present injury and pleading general damages, including future medical costs, is legally proper at this phase of the litigation.
For each form of relief sought in federal court, Plaintiff must establish standing.
Defendants rely on
This case is distinguishable from
In the first amended complaint, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants waived all defenses based on presentation of claims to the Victims Compensation Board due to failing to comply with the statutory notice requirements under California Government Code section 53501. Defendants move to dismiss the state law claims on the ground that Plaintiffs did not comply with the Government Claims Act and Plaintiffs are not excused from presenting their claim prior to bringing suit.
The California Tort Claims Act
Plaintiffs contend that Defendants waived the presentation requirement by not complying with California Government Code section 53501 which requires that each public agency must file with the Secretary of State a form which includes:
Cal. Gov. Code § 53051(a). Section 946.4, as relevant here, provides that the failure to present a claim does not bar a suit if "[a] statement or amended statement pertaining to the public agency is on file, or is placed on file . . . but the information contained therein is so inaccurate or incomplete that it does not substantially conform to the requirements of Section 53051." A public agency is described as "a district, public authority, public agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the state, but does not include the state or a county, city and county, or city." Cal. Gov. Code § 53050.
"[S]ection 53051 was enacted `to provide a means for identifying public agencies and the names and addresses of designated officers needed to enable or assist a person to comply with any applicable claims procedure[.]'"
In their opposition, Plaintiffs contend that, at the pleading stage, the Court should not decide the issue of substantial compliance. However, the Court disagrees for several reasons. Initially, Plaintiffs argue that the failure to comply with the California Tort Claims Act is an affirmative defense. However, to state a claim a plaintiff must allege compliance with the Act and it is therefore an element of the state law cause of action.
The California Tort Claim Act defines the State as "the State and any office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, commission or agency of the State claims against which are paid by warrants drawn by the Controller." Cal. Gov. Code §§ 900.6, 940.6. If the CDCR claims are paid by warrants drawn by the Controller, it would be considered the State for the purposes of the California Tort Claims Act and is not required to comply with section 53050.
Further, the Court takes judicial notice of the California Roster of State Agencies, Departments, Boards, and Commissions provided by Defendants in their request for judicial notice.
An unpublished California case,
"Substantial compliance . . . means actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute."
The purpose of section 53051 is "to provide a means for identifying public agencies and the names and addresses of designated officers needed to enable or assist a person to comply with any applicable claims procedure."
Plaintiffs' contend that the failure to name the secretary and each member of the governing board did not substantially comply with section 53051. However, the information provided on the roster includes the website for the CDCR which provides the current information regarding the contact information for each department or division of the CDCR. Plaintiffs are excused from presenting a claim only where the information provided by the agency "is so inaccurate or incomplete that it does not substantially conform to the requirements of Section 53051." Cal. Gov. Code § 946.4. The Court finds that the information on the Roster substantially complies with the purpose of section 53051 as it provides a means to identify the officers so that Plaintiffs could comply with the claims procedure.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the state law claims for failure to file a claim in compliance with the California Tort Claim Act should be granted.
Defendants move to sever the claims against the individual defendants contending that the parties are misjoined in this action. Plaintiffs counter that they are alleging that Defendants' policies and systemic pattern of inaction exposed them to a greater risk of contracting Valley Fever and they share common questions of law and fact making joinder of the parties and claims proper.
Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for joinder of parties in a single action where any right to relief is asserted by them or against them "jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs [or defendants] will arise in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)
The complaint in this action arises out of the policy of housing high risk inmates in the endemic area which was allegedly promulgated and implemented by the defendants in this action. While the defendants argue that the injuries do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, the Court disagrees. Plaintiffs are all alleging to have been harmed by the same policy. Similarly the claims by all these Plaintiffs will share common questions of law and fact. Joinder is appropriate under Rule 20. While the Court agrees with Defendants that the issue of joinder for all purposes may need to be readdressed at a later stage of the proceedings, Defendants' motion to dismiss for improper joinder at the pleading stage should be denied.
Finally, Defendants move to dismiss the complaint claiming it violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs oppose the motion on the ground that the complaint is appropriately detailed and is organized to allow Defendants to understand the Constitutional violations alleged.
While Defendants cite cases in which a complaint has been dismissed for being "prolix" with evidentiary detail, the Court does not find Plaintiffs' complaint to violate Rule 8. The Ninth Circuit has held that a complaint may be dismissed where the allegations are such that the court has difficulty determining the circumstances that gave rise to the cause of action.
While the amended complaint is seventy pages long, it asserts claims for six plaintiffs against thirteen defendants. Although the complaint does contain some unnecessary and repetitive detail, it is not so repetitious or confusing as to make it incomprehensible. The complaint is logically organized, divided into sections for parties, factual allegations, Plaintiffs theories of liability, and causes of action. The complaint here clearly delineates the claims being brought and the defendants against whom the claims are being made. The complaint is this action is distinguishable from those cases in which courts have dismissed the complaint for violating Rule 8.
Further, while Defendants contend that Plaintiffs use terms such as high-risk or at-risk without defining the terms, the complaint makes it clear that certain racial groups, such as African-Americans, Filipinos and other Asians, Hispanics, and American Indians, as well as those who are immune compromised are those at high risk for developing disseminated disease. Although Defendants contend that Plaintiffs fail to identity if they fall within these categories, each Plaintiff alleges which group he belongs to. Plaintiffs Barnett, Dallas, Garner, Roberts, and Smith identify themselves as African-American. Plaintiff Romo identifies himself as Hispanic. Additionally, Plaintiffs Barnett, Roberts, and Smith allege they suffered from respiratory problems that placed them at high risk of contracting Valley Fever prior to being transferred into PVSP.
Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs have failed to define certain terms such as hyperendemic regions or prisons. However, the complaint identifies the prisons in the endemic and hyper-endemic regions as ASP, California Correctional Institution, California State Prison-Corcoran, Wasco State Prison, North Kern State Prison, PVSP, California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran, and Kern Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 14 at ¶ 55.)
The Court finds that the complaint does not violate Rule 8 and recommends that Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for violating Rule 8 be denied.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 304. Within fourteen (14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The district judge will review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district judge's order.