Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00521/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00521-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA A. WILLARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. MORENO,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00521-JLO-JLT (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DENY DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO 

DISMISS

(Doc. 15) 

30-DAY DEADLINE

In this action, Plaintiff is claims Defendant violated the Eighth Amendment claim by 

acting with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. (See Doc. 13, Service O.) Now 

before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss which argues that an attachment to the 

complaint contradicts the allegations made such to warrant a dismissal of the action. 

I. Legal Standards

A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a 

claim. Dismissal is proper if there is a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of 

sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 

1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1762 (2012). In resolving a 12(b)(6) 

motion, a court’s review is generally limited to the operative pleading. Daniels-Hall v. National 

Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010); Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 

Case 1:14-cv-00521-LJO-JLT Document 19 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

2007); Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 465 F.3d 992, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2006); Schneider v. 

California Dept. of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). 

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)); Conservation Force, 

646 F.3d at 1242; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court must 

accept well-pled factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Daniels-Hall, 629 F.3d at 998; Sanders, 504 F.3d at 910; Huynh, 465 F.3d at 996-

97; Morales v. City of Los Angeles, 214 F.3d 1151, 1153 (9th Cir. 2000). Prisoners proceeding 

pro se are still entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved 

in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012); Watison v. Carter, 668 

F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2011); Hebbe 

v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).

Further, "[i]f there are two alternative explanations, one advanced by defendant and the 

other advanced by plaintiff, both of which are plausible, plaintiff's complaint survives a motion to 

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)." Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216-17. "Plaintiff’s complaint may 

be dismissed only when defendant's plausible alternative explanation is so convincing that 

plaintiff's explanation is implausible. The standard at this stage of the litigation is not that 

plaintiff’s explanation must be true or even probable. The factual allegations of the complaint 

need only 'plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.'" Id., quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 

(emphasis in original). "Rule 8(a) 'does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading 

stage; it simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal 

evidence' to support the allegations." Id., quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (emphasis added in 

Starr).

II. Discussion

Defendant argues the complaint should be dismissed because it is contradicted by an 

exhibit to the Complaint which is found at page 34. (Doc. 15.) 

///

Case 1:14-cv-00521-LJO-JLT Document 19 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

A. Plaintiff's Allegations

Plaintiff alleges that on October 31, 2013, he sent a request for medical care to Defendant. 

When he went for dental care on November 1, 2014, he personally gave Defendant another request 

for medical care and that both of these requests for medical care pertained to serious stomach 

cramping he was having which caused extreme pain. Plaintiff alleges Defendant did not respond 

to either request until two weeks later when he called Plaintiff to the medical center on November 

13, 2013. In that encounter, Plaintiff alleges Defendant asked, “What the fuck” was Plaintiff's 

problem and when Plaintiff explained he was suffering from stomach cramps and desired to be 

examined, Defendant did not give him any medical attention and told him he was to come back in 

two weeks since he was fine. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant never called him back for medical 

treatment and that he continues to be in severe pain.

B. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's October 31st and November 4th health care service

requests show no indication of ever being received by medical staff and that the November 7th 

request indicates that it was received by medical staff on November 12th through institutional 

mail. (Doc. 15, at p. 2.) Defendant argues that Page 34 is the medical record from his November 

13th exam of Plaintiff, which shows that he "performed a very thorough medical examination and 

did not find anything wrong" with Plaintiff. (Id., at pp. 1-3:14.) Defendant further argues that 

Page 34 can and should be considered since it contradicts Plaintiff's allegations and is attached as 

an exhibit to the Complaint. (Id., at 6.) Defendant also argues that Plaintiff's allegations amount 

to nothing more than a disagreement with Defendant's diagnosis. (Id., at 7.) 

Plaintiff counters that he alleges that he hand delivered his November 1st health care 

services request to Defendant, but that Defendant did not call him to be examined until two weeks 

after that and when he did see Plaintiff, Defendant did nothing more than chide him and tell him to 

come back in two weeks, but never called Plaintiff back for a two week follow-up. (Doc. 16, pp. 

2-3.) Plaintiff alleged as much in the Complaint. (See Doc. 1, pp. 3-4.) 

Plaintiff counters Defendant's argument that the note on the November 7th health care 

services request (seems to show it was received by medical staff via institutional mail on 

Case 1:14-cv-00521-LJO-JLT Document 19 Filed 07/09/15 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

November 12th) is false and incorrect as these forms are not mailed, but are picked up by the LVN 

during medication dispersal. Plaintiff explains that it was during medical dispersal when he gave 

Defendant his request on November 1st. (Doc. 16, at p.3.) Plaintiff further argues that the 

contents of Page 34 are false and incorrect to the extent it shows Defendant examined him. (Id., at 

p.3.) 

When and how Plaintiff's health care services requests were received is important to the 

issue of when Defendant first had notice that Plaintiff was experiencing a serious medical issue for 

which he desired treatment. However, the crux of Plaintiff's claim is that he was denied medical 

care by Defendant. To this end, Defendant argues that he is exonerated by Page 34 and that this 

entire action should be dismissed since its contents contradict Plaintiff's allegations. 

Although generally the scope of review on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is 

limited to the Complaint, a court may consider evidence on which the “complaint ‘necessarily 

relies' if: (1) the complaint refers to the document; (2) the document is central to the plaintiff's 

claim; and (3) no party questions the authenticity of the copy attached to the 12(b)(6) motion.” 

Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir.2006) (quoting Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 453–

54 (9th Cir.1994)). Plaintiff's Complaint does not "necessarily rely" on Page 34, nor is it central to 

Plaintiff's claim -- to the contrary, Plaintiff's alleges and argues that this exam never took place. 

Further, while the Complaint refers to Page 34, it only does so generally as part of "Exhibit A" to 

support his response under the section of the complaint form that inquires whether administrative 

remedies have been exhausted. (Doc. 1, p. 2.) Neither Page 34, nor any other page of Exhibit A 

are mentioned or referred to in Plaintiff's factual allegations. Finally, Plaintiff (both by his 

allegations and his opposition to the motion to dismiss which is signed under penalty of perjury) 

clearly questions the authenticity and reliability of the contents of Page 34. Thus, Page 34 should 

not be treated as part of the Complaint for purposes of Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to 

state a claim. 

Further, Defendant asserts that Page 34 shows he "performed a very thorough medical 

examination and did not find anything wrong with [Plaintiff]." (Doc.15-1, 1:22-25.) Yet Plaintiff 

asserts that he presented to Defendant, but that Defendant merely chided him and told him to 

Case 1:14-cv-00521-LJO-JLT Document 19 Filed 07/09/15 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

return in two weeks, but then never called for Plaintiff to return for the follow-up exam. (Doc. 1, 

pp. 3-4; Doc. 16, p. 2.) Unfortunately, this Court has seen a number of lawsuits filed by prisoners 

that allege they appeared for medical attention only that was not given despite that the records 

show otherwise, so it cannot be said that Plaintiff's explanation of events is implausible. The 

Court cannot determine at this stage whether Plaintiff’s version is more credible than Defendant’s 

but because both Plaintiff’s allegations are not facially implausible, the motion to dismiss must be 

denied. Starr, 652 F.3d at 1216-17. 

Finally, Defendant's argument that Plaintiff's allegations amount to a mere difference of 

opinion—and are, therefore, not cognizable—falls short as well. Plaintiff's allegations, as 

discussed above, do not indicate that he disagreed with Defendant's care, treatment, or 

recommendation therefore, but rather that Defendant refused to examine Plaintiff despite knowing 

he was suffering painful abdominal cramps. Thus, Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's 

Complaint per Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a cognizable claim should be denied.

IV. Recommendations

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), filed 

on September 12, 2014 (Doc. 15), be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 30 

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 

839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00521-LJO-JLT Document 19 Filed 07/09/15 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Case 1:14-cv-00521-LJO-JLT Document 19 Filed 07/09/15 Page 6 of 6