Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01774/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01774-1/pdf.json

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

---

1 

05-cv-1774-BAS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALBERT WILSON, CDCR #H95157, on behalf of himself and 

others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

EDMUND G. BROWN, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 05-cv-1774-BAS-MDD 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF 

UNITED STATES 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE RE: 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

[ECF No. 72] 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States 

District Judge Cynthia A. Bashant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

Case 3:05-cv-01774-BAS-MDD Document 77 Filed 07/30/15 Page 1 of 15
2 

05-cv-1774-BAS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

and Local Civil Rule 72.1(c) of the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of California. 

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court RECOMMENDS

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED and Defendants 

Montgomery, Brown and Beard be DISMISSED. 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

A. Federal Proceedings 

The federal proceedings prior to Plaintiff filing the Second 

Amended Complaint (“SAC”) are contained within a Report and 

Recommendation filed on January 30, 2015. (ECF No. 65). 

On March 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed the SAC. (ECF No. 68). The 

SAC sets forth four claims against Defendants: (1) a claim for money 

damages against Defendants Garcia, Dupler and Irvin; (2) a class 

claim for injunctive relief against Defendants Montgomery, Brown and 

Beard; (3) a claim for money damages against Defendants Garcia, 

Dupler and Irvin; and (4) a claim for declaratory relief and for fees and 

costs against Defendants Garcia, Dupler and Irvin. Id. at 15-21. 

Plaintiff served Defendants Montgomery, Brown and Beard on June 

Case 3:05-cv-01774-BAS-MDD Document 77 Filed 07/30/15 Page 2 of 15
3 

05-cv-1774-BAS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

25, 2014. (ECF Nos. 53, 54, 55). Plaintiff has not served Defendants 

Garcia, Dupler or Irvin.1 

On April 6, 2015, Defendants Montgomery, Brown and Beard 

filed a Motion to Dismiss the SAC on the second and only claim 

against them: a class action claim alleging they violated the Eighth 

Amendment by subjecting the health and welfare of African-American 

inmates at Calipatria State Prison (“CSP”) to the risk of 

Coccidioidomycosis (“valley fever”) infection. (ECF No. 72 at 17-18). 

Defendants do not move to dismiss claims one, three and four. Id. at 

15, 18, 19; (ECF No. 72-1 at 2). Defendants’ Motion asserts three 

grounds for dismissal of Plaintiff’s second claim: (1) lack of standing to 

seek injunctive relief; (2) failure to state a claim upon which injunctive 

relief may be granted; and (3) preclusion of the claim by the Plata v. 

Brown class action pending in the Northern District of California. 

(ECF No. 72-1 at 5, 6, 8). On April 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Response 

 

1 Because Plaintiff failed to serve Defendants Garcia, Dupler or Irvin 

pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m), the Court RECOMMENDS the 

District Judge issue an Order to Show Cause re: dismissal for failure to 

prosecute. 

Case 3:05-cv-01774-BAS-MDD Document 77 Filed 07/30/15 Page 3 of 15
4 

05-cv-1774-BAS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

in Opposition. (ECF No. 73). On May 4, 2015, Defendants filed a 

Reply. (ECF No. 75). 

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

 The SAC is the operative complaint. (ECF No. 68). The SAC 

names six Defendants: (1) Edmund G. Brown, Governor of California; 

(2) Jeffery Beard, Secretary of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”); (3) Warren Montgomery, 

acting warden of CSP; (4) Rosie Garcia, former warden at CSP; (5) P.J. 

Dupler, Chief Medical Officer at CSP; and (6) Irvin, Medical Technical 

Assistant. Id. at 2-3. 

 Plaintiff’s first claim alleges Defendants Garcia, Dupler and Irvin 

individually participated in exposing him to valley fever and failed to 

provide adequate medical care. Id. at 15. Plaintiff contends these 

Defendants consciously disregarded the risk of valley fever infection at 

CSP, failed to provide adequate medical care and failed to implement 

preventative or remedial measures. Id. Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ 

action unnecessarily exposed him and other African-American inmates 

at CSP to valley fever and seeks monetary damages. Id. at 15-17. 

Case 3:05-cv-01774-BAS-MDD Document 77 Filed 07/30/15 Page 4 of 15
5 

05-cv-1774-BAS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

 Plaintiff’s second claim alleges a class claim for injunctive relief 

against Defendants Montgomery, Brown and Beard. Id. at 17. 

Plaintiff alleges these Defendants are responsible for the operation of 

CSP through their official positions and policy-making authority. Id. 

Plaintiff seeks the following injunctive relief: 

(1) [N]otification of inmates at [CSP] of the presence; 

sign and symptoms; and potential consequences of 

Valley Fever so they may be able to protect themselves 

from infection, or in the event of infection, have the 

means to seek early medical treatment to prevent 

disseminated [valley fever]; (2) implementation of 

appropriate preventative measures to protect inmates 

from exposure []; and (3) such other and further relief 

as this Court deems just and proper. 

Id. at 18. 

Plaintiff’s third claim alleges Defendants Garcia, Dupler and 

Irvin negligently failed to operate and maintain a safe and habitable 

prison facility and seeks monetary damages. Id. 

 Plaintiff’s fourth claim alleges Defendants Garcia, Dupler and 

Irvin owed him a custodial duty of care and breached this duty by 

negligently failing to protect Plaintiff from a known harm―valley 

fever. Id. at 19. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief as well as fees and 

costs. Id. at 20-21. 

Case 3:05-cv-01774-BAS-MDD Document 77 Filed 07/30/15 Page 5 of 15
6 

05-cv-1774-BAS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

“Whether [a court] construes Defendants' motion as one under 

Rule 12(b)(6) or as a facial attack on subject matter jurisdiction under 

Rule 12(b)(1), all factual allegations in [Plaintiff’s] complaint are taken 

as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in his favor.” Pride v. 

Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Knievel v. ESPN, 393 

F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005); Doe v. Holy See, 557 F.3d 1066, 1073 

(9th Cir. 2009)). District courts have discretion to dismiss parts of a 

plaintiff’s complaint which are addressed by another pending class 

action. Id. To determine whether a plaintiff’s action is duplicative, a 

court must consider the relief sought in other pending class actions. Id. 

“A district court may properly dismiss an individual complaint because 

the complainant is a member in a class action seeking the same relief.” 

Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted) (emphasis in Pride). 

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Preclusion

This Court finds the Plata v. Brown action precludes Plaintiff’s 

class claim because Plaintiff’s proposed class and requested relief is 

Case 3:05-cv-01774-BAS-MDD Document 77 Filed 07/30/15 Page 6 of 15
7 

05-cv-1774-BAS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

narrower than that sought in Plata and therefore does not reach 

Defendants’ other grounds for dismissal. 

1. Class Membership 

A class action is a representative suit brought on behalf of groups 

of persons similarly situated as the named plaintiff but who may or may 

not be parties to the action. See generally FED. R. CIV. P. 23. “In a class 

action, [absent] class members [are those] who are not named parties to 

the litigation [but] are nevertheless bound by any judgment in the 

action.” Crawford v. Honig, 37 F.3d 485, 487 (9th Cir. 1994). An absent 

class member in a (b)(1) or (b)(2) action is neither entitled to opt-out of 

class membership nor notice of the pending action. Wal-Mart Stores, 

Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2557 (2011). 

A (b)(1) class action protects the rights of defendants where: 

Prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class 

members [which] would create a risk of: 

(a) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect 

to individual class members that would establish 

incompatible standards of conduct for the party 

opposing the class; or 

(b) adjudications with respect to individual class 

members that, as a practical matter, would be 

dispositive of the interests of the other members not 

Case 3:05-cv-01774-BAS-MDD Document 77 Filed 07/30/15 Page 7 of 15
8 

05-cv-1774-BAS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

parties to the individual adjudications or would 

substantially impair or impede their ability to protect 

their interests. 

FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(1). 

A (b)(2) action furthers judicial efficiency by avoiding concurrent 

litigation regarding the same course of conduct where: 

The party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on 

grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final 

injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is 

appropriate respecting the class as a whole. 

FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(2). 

Plata v. Brown, Case No. 3:01-cv-01351-TEH (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 

2001) was filed as a class action under FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(1) and 

(b)(2). (Case No. 3:01-cv-01351 ECF No. 20 at 52). The Plata class is 

defined as: “all prisoners who are now, or will in the future be, under 

the custody of the CDC[R] but excluding any prisoners confined at 

Pelican Bay State Prison.” (Case No. 3:01-cv-01351 ECF No. 20 at 52, 

ECF No. 68 at 5). Plaintiff’s class definition is narrower; it consists of 

all African-American inmates who contracted valley fever while 

incarcerated at CSP, a CDCR facility, between 1997 and the present. 

(Case No. 3:05-cv-01774 ECF No. 68 at 5, 8-9). Plata’s class definition 

Case 3:05-cv-01774-BAS-MDD Document 77 Filed 07/30/15 Page 8 of 15
9 

05-cv-1774-BAS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

encompasses all CDCR inmates and therefore includes Plaintiff’s class 

of African-American inmates at CSP. See Pride, 719 F.3d at 1134 

(citing Plata Stip. ¶ 8); see also (Case No. 3:01-cv-01351 ECF No. 68 ¶¶ 

7, 8). 

Plaintiff is not a named party in the Plata action and is therefore 

considered an absent class member because he may still be bound by a 

final judgment in the Plata action. The only exception to the Plata class 

is Pelican Bay inmates. Id. Plaintiff and the proposed class members 

are not incarcerated at Pelican Bay and therefore do not fall within 

Plata’s exception. (Case No. 3:05-cv-01774 ECF No. 68 at 8-9). 

Additionally, the Plata class definition includes all future CDCR 

inmates. (Case No. 3:01-cv-01351 ECF No. 20 at 52). Plata was filed in 

August 2001 and Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed in 2005. (Case No. 

3:01-cv-01351 ECF 20 at 1; Case No. 3:05-cv-01774 ECF No. 1 at 1, 5). 

Plaintiff never opted-out of class membership in the Plata action. WalMart, 131 S.Ct. at 2257 (stating absent class members in (b)(1)/(b)(2) 

actions are not permitted to opt-out). The class Plaintiff seeks to 

represent is included in the Plata class and is therefore duplicative of 

the Plata class. 

Case 3:05-cv-01774-BAS-MDD Document 77 Filed 07/30/15 Page 9 of 15
10 

05-cv-1774-BAS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2. Class Relief 

“The Plata class seeks systemic reform of medical care in the 

California prisons for inmates with serious medical needs.” Pride, 719 

F.3d at 1136; (Case No. 3:01-cv-01351 ECF No. 20 at 65). “Defendants 

[in Plata] are required to implement various systemic changes such as 

increasing medical staff . . . individual inmates [are not required] to 

seek injunctive relief related to individual medical treatment care 

through [the Plata stipulation’s] provisions.” Pride, 719 F.3d at 1136 

(emphasis added). Plaintiff requests: “(1) notification of inmates at 

[CSP] of the presence; signs and symptoms of Valley Fever and (2) 

implementation of appropriate preventative measures to protect 

inmates from exposure to [valley fever].” (Case No. 3:01-cv-01351 ECF 

No. 68 at 21). 

Whether Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is duplicative of 

the Plata action turns on whether his request for relief is systemic or 

individual. Pride, 719 F.3d at 1137-38 (stating where “a claim for 

injunctive relief relates solely to [Plaintiff’s] individuals need and 

treatment,” then that claim is not duplicative of the Plata action and 

can proceed separately). The Court in Pride defined systemic injunctive 

Case 3:05-cv-01774-BAS-MDD Document 77 Filed 07/30/15 Page 10 of 15
11 

05-cv-1774-BAS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

relief related to medical care as relief applicable to inmates generally as 

distinguishable from relief applicable solely to the plaintiff, and stated 

such systemic injunctive relief is barred as duplicative of the Plata

action. Id at 1137. 

Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of all CSP African-American 

inmates, including himself, through the implementation of measures 

that would apply generally to CSP as a whole. (Case No. 3:01-cv-01351 

ECF No. 68 at 21). Plaintiff does not allege the relief he seeks applies 

to only himself or his individual medical needs. Rather, Plaintiff seeks 

systemic injunctive relief on behalf of CDCR prison inmates 

generally―the type of systemic relief the Court in Pride deemed 

impermissible as duplicative of the Plata action. Pride, 719 F.3d at 

1137-38. 

“A district court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction over a 

California prisoner’s claim seeking systemic injunctive relief related to 

medical care where the allegations and relief sought are duplicative of 

Plata.” Id. at 1137 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff cannot separately 

pursue a class claim because his claim for systemic injunctive relief is 

addressed in the Plata action. Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 893 (9th 

Case 3:05-cv-01774-BAS-MDD Document 77 Filed 07/30/15 Page 11 of 15
12 

05-cv-1774-BAS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Cir. 1979). The Plata class claims and Plaintiff’s claim share a common 

issue of fact: systemic deficient medical care at CDCR facilities. (Case 

No. 3:01-cv-01351 ECF No. 20; Case No. 3:05-cv-01774 ECF No. 68). If 

the Court grants Plaintiff’s request for relief, it could create 

inconsistent adjudications regarding how relief is implemented in 

California prisons. Pride, 719 F.3d at 1137 (stating court should decline 

jurisdiction if there is risk of inconsistent adjudications on same 

claims). Judicial efficiency warrants litigation in one forum because 

“another court [with] jurisdiction over the same matter has entertained 

it and can achieve the same result.” Crawford, 599 F.2d at 893. The 

Northern District of California is the most sensible forum because the 

district court in San Francisco has exercised jurisdiction over the Plata

action since its filing in 2001. See generally Plata v. Brown, Case No. 

3:01-cv-01351 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2001). 

Following the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Pride, this Court finds 

Plaintiff’s class claim seeking systemic injunctive relief duplicative of 

Case 3:05-cv-01774-BAS-MDD Document 77 Filed 07/30/15 Page 12 of 15
13 

05-cv-1774-BAS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

the Plata action and the Court recommends declining jurisdiction and 

dismissing Plaintiff’s class claim. 2 Pride, 719 F.3d at 1137. 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss Plaintiff’s second cause of action be GRANTED. As a 

consequence of dismissing Plaintiff’s second claim, Defendants 

Montgomery, Brown and Beard are DISMISSED. The first, third and 

fourth claims for individual relief against Defendants Garcia, Dupler 

and Irvin remain pending.3

The record does not reflect whether Defendants sent Plaintiff’s 

Complaint to Plata’s counsel as required by the Plata stipulation. (Case 

No. 3:01-cv-01351 ECF No. 68 ¶ 29 (requiring defense counsel in any 

litigation seeking class or systemic relief which raise issues of 

preclusion and res judicata to send such complaints to Plata plaintiffs’ 

 

2 Although Plaintiff’s class claim is barred, a recent California Superior 

Court case held that an inmate can sue under the Bane Act, California’s 

civil rights statute, for future medical costs resulting from valley fever 

infection at a California state prison facility. 

3 Plaintiff’s prayer for relief on the first and third causes of action is 

vague as to whether he is requesting class-wide damages in addition to 

individual damages. (Case No. 3:05-cv-01174 ECF No. 68 at 21). The 

Court RECOMMENDS those claims be DISMISSED to the extent 

Plaintiff is requesting class-wide money damages. Claims one, three 

and four survive this Motion to Dismiss to the extent Plaintiff seeks 

individual relief. 

Case 3:05-cv-01774-BAS-MDD Document 77 Filed 07/30/15 Page 13 of 15
14 

05-cv-1774-BAS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

counsel)). Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS the District Judge 

ORDER Defendants to send Plaintiff’s Complaint to plaintiffs’ counsel 

in the Plata action if they have not done so. 

V. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED

that the District Court issue an Order: (1) Approving and Adopting 

this Report and Recommendation; (2) GRANTING Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s second cause of action and dismissing 

Defendants Montgomery, Brown and Beard; (3) DENYING 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss to the extent Plaintiff is seeking 

individual money damages on his first, third and fourth causes of 

action; and (4) Directing that judgment be entered dismissing 

Plaintiff’s second cause of action and Defendants Montgomery, Brown 

and Beard. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objections to this 

Report must be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later 

than August 21, 2015. The document should be captioned “Objections 

to Report and Recommendation.” 

Case 3:05-cv-01774-BAS-MDD Document 77 Filed 07/30/15 Page 14 of 15
15 

05-cv-1774-BAS-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objection 

shall be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than 

August 28, 2015. The parties are advised that the failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those 

objections on appeal of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 

F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 30, 2015

Case 3:05-cv-01774-BAS-MDD Document 77 Filed 07/30/15 Page 15 of 15