B. LYNN WINMILL, Chief District Judge.
Pending before the Court are Defendants Smith and Siegert's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Dkt. 35.) The Court finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, and thus the Court will decide this matter on the written motions, briefs, and record without oral argument. D. Idaho L. Civ. R. 7.1(d). Having reviewed the record, and for the reasons discussed herein, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Motion to Dismiss and enters the following Order.
Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC) and is currently housed at Idaho State Correctional Institution (ISCI). He is proceeding in this action pro se. Beginning some time in 2009, Plaintiff alleges he began having problems urinating and had an enlarged prostate gland, so a biopsy was performed at an off-site urology clinic. (Compl., Dkt. 3, p. 6.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant Dawson refused to provide him the results of his biopsy, and that he had to wait until October 2010 when Plaintiff finally returned to the urologist who told him the results of the biopsy and that he had prostate cancer. (Id., p. 7.) Plaintiff had surgery in January 2011 to remove his prostate gland, and alleges that ISCI medical staff then delayed Plaintiff's follow-up visit to the surgeon until August 2011, when he was finally able to complain to the surgeon that "he had been experiencing a lot of continued difficulty or problems." (Id.) Plaintiff contends that "Defendants acted with malicious intent to deliberately delay Plaintiff's medical treatment in order to save money" which resulted in "many days of unnecessary pain and great emotional distress." (Id., p. 8.)
On October 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed his Complaint alleging that Defendants subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment and were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs throughout the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up care for his prostate cancer in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state medical malpractice laws. (Dkt. 3.) The Court then sent Plaintiff an Order of Conditional Filing, advising him that he could not proceed with his case until the Court issued an initial review order. (Dkt. 6.)
The Initial Review Order was issued on April 23, 2012. (Dkt. 12). The Court denied Plaintiff's application for in forma pauperis status and permitted Plaintiff to proceed only against the individual Defendants at that time. (Id., p. 10.)
Defendants Smith and Siegert move to dismiss that complaint against them on the grounds that they were not personally involved with the alleged constitutional violations, there is insufficient facts to support negligence and there is no legal basis for a state constitutional claim. (Dkt. 35.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," in order to "give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant may move to dismiss a complaint if that complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss "does not need detailed factual allegations," it must set forth "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id.
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." Id. at 570. 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. at 556. 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. Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are "merely consistent with" a defendant's liability, it "stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of `entitlement to relief.'" Id. at 557 (alteration omitted).
The Supreme Court has identified two "working principles" that underlie this dismissal standard. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Id. "Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions." Id. at 678-79. Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Id. at 679. "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id.
When a court is considering a motion to dismiss, it must "`consider only allegations contained in the pleadings, exhibits attached to the complaint, and matters properly subject to judicial notice.'" Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 763 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam)).
Plaintiff brings his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the civil rights statute. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute proximately caused by conduct of a person acting under color of state law. Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). Section 1983 is "`not itself a source of substantive rights,' but merely provides `a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.'" Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)).
Prison officials are generally not liable for damages in their individual capacities under § 1983 unless they personally participated in the alleged constitutional violations. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677 ("[E]ach Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own misconduct."). "A defendant may be held liable as a supervisor under § 1983 `if there exists either (1) his or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.'" Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)). This causal connection "can be established by setting in motion a series of acts by others, or by knowingly refusing to terminate a series of acts by others, which the supervisor knew or reasonably should have known would cause others to inflict a constitutional injury." Id. at 1207-08 (internal quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted).
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Smith and Siegert's actions violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendment requires that prisoners receive minimally adequate medical care, and prison officials or prison medical providers can be held liable if their "acts or omissions [were] sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). "Because society does not expect that prisoners will have unqualified access to health care, deliberate indifference to medical needs amounts to an Eighth Amendment violation only if those needs are `serious.'" Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992).
The Ninth Circuit has defined a "serious medical need" in the following ways:
McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).
A conclusion that a defendant acted with deliberate indifference requires that the plaintiff show both "a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner's pain or possible medical need and . . . harm caused by the indifference." Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). To exhibit deliberate indifference, a prison official "must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). In the medical context, deliberate indifference can be "manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner's needs or by prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed." Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05 (footnotes omitted).
Non-medical prison personnel are generally entitled to rely on the opinions of medical professionals with respect to appropriate medical treatment of an inmate. However, if "a reasonable person would likely determine [the medical treatment] to be inferior," the fact that an official is not medically trained will not shield that official from liability for deliberate indifference. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 986 (9th Cir. 2012) (overruled on other grounds by Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014)); see also McGee v. Adams, 721 F.3d 474, 483 (7th Cir. 2013) (stating that non-medical personnel may rely on medical opinions of health care professionals unless "they have a reason to believe (or actual knowledge) that prison doctors or their assistants are mistreating (or not treating) a prisoner.") (internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that Defendant Smith personally participated in his alleged inadequate medical care or that she is subject to supervisory liability. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Starr, 652 F.3d at 1207. Rather, Plaintiff "tenders naked assertions devoid of further enhancement." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Smith, as Warden of ISCI, is "legally responsible" for ISCI's operations and for the subsequent welfare or well being of all inmates housed at that institution. Plaintiff makes no other specific allegations as to Defendant Smith in his Complaint. On July 27, 2011, Plaintiff submitted an Offender Concern Form to Warden Smith stating that he would like to meet with her "about ongoing problems I am experiencing . . . can you please help." (Dkt. 43, p. 5.)
There is nothing in the Complaint to plausibly suggest that Defendant Smith was indifferent to Plaintiff's medical needs and that a reasonable person in her position would have determined that Plaintiff's medical treatment was inferior. See Snow, 533 U.S. at 202. The grievance submitted to Smith did not contain even a modicum of information from which she could reasonably know of a possible constitutional injury to Plaintiff.
Further, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and a claim against Warden Smith may be appropriate in that context, Plaintiff has been released from prison (see Dkt. 45) and any claim for injunctive relief would be moot. The Ninth Circuit has held that a plaintiff may not be awarded injunctive relief relative to a facility where he is no longer incarcerated if there is no reasonable expectation that he will be housed there again in the near future. See Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1990). Similarly, United States Supreme Court precedent holds that relief is speculative when it depends upon the plaintiff violating the law in the future. See Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983). Similarly, Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Smith for violations of the Idaho Constitution will also be dismissed.
Lastly, Plaintiff has not shown any personal involvement by Defendant Smith to support his claim for "malpractice." (See Compl. ¶ 30.) Plaintiff has not pleaded factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that Defendant Smith is liable for the misconduct alleged and does not satisfy Rule 8. Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Smith will be dismissed.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Siegert is responsible "for the oversight and supervision of the medical care provided to inmates." (Compl., pp. 3-4.)
Liability may attach under § 1983 when there is a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. See Starr, 652 F.3d at 1207. Even non-medical
Plaintiff has also asserted a constitutional violation pursuant to the Idaho Constitution. Plaintiff has not shown that the Idaho State Constitution offers any greater protection than the United States Constitution, see State v. Sharpe, 129 Idaho 693, 931 P.2d 1211 (Idaho 1997), and thus, resolution of the federal constitutional issues will necessarily resolve Plaintiff's grievances brought under the state constitution. No additional proof is needed from Plaintiff to proceed on his state constitutional claim.
The Court will also allow Plaintiff to proceed on his state law claim as well at this time. It may well be that it is barred by the Idaho Tort Claims Act but as it is not clear whether any discovery, even initial disclosures, have taken place in this case, the Court will allow Plaintiff the benefit of discovery.
The Court will deny Defendant Siegert's motion to dismiss without prejudice. Defendant may reassert these arguments again at the summary judgment stage.
3.
