Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02823/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02823-1/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 

16cv2823 WQH (NLS) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Kyle Robert James, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

DEPUTY EMMENS, (Team 1) San Diego 

Sheriffs Deputy; LT. LAURA COYNE, 

Lieutenant Sheriff Deputy; CORP. 

RODRIGUEZ, (Team 1) Corporal 

Sheriffs Deputy; CAPT. FLYNN, Sheriffs 

Captain at San Diego Central Jail; 

DEPUTY LAMONTE, Sheriffs Deputy; 

INTERNAL AFFAIRS LT. 

DUCKWORTH, Internal Affairs 

Lieutenant; WILLIAM D. GORE, Sheriff 

for San Diego County; SGT. 

BLACKWELL, Sheriffs SGT. at San 

Diego Central Jail; SGT. BINSFIELD, 

Sheriffs SGT at San Diego Central Jail; 

LT. STORDON, Sheriffs Lieutenant at 

San Diego Central Jail; SGT. G. 

CASTRO, Sheriffs SGT at George Bailey 

Detention Facility; JOHN DOE, Internal 

Affairs SGT; LT. DERICK JONES, 

Sheriffs Lieutenant; BONNIE 

DUMANIS, District Attorney, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 16cv2823 WQH (NLS) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER 

GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS [Dkt. No. 28] 

Case 3:16-cv-02823-WQH-NLS Document 43 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 10
2 

16cv2823 WQH (NLS) 

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

 Plaintiff Kyle Robert James, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that Defendants violated several of 

his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at the San Diego County Jail following 

his sentencing. The claims stem from events occurring on January 23 and February 5, 

2016. Certain Defendants seek to be dismissed from the action completely, and other 

Defendants seek to dismiss certain claims. 

James filed an opposition and Defendants filed a reply. For the following reasons, 

this court recommends that the district judge GRANT in part and DENY in part the 

motion to dismiss. 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND1

A. January 23, 2016 Incidents. 

At approximately 7:00 p.m. on January 23, 2016, James was forced to “act out” by 

refusing to come out of his cell for a Saturday inspection. He stayed in his cell so he 

could get defendant Lt. Coyne to come to his cell, where he could report to her the verbal 

abuse coming from defendant Deputy Emmens. When James did not come out, Deputy 

Emmens called him a child molester in front of other inmates who were gang members. 

Lt. Coyne came over and told James he would have a hygiene inspection. He was then 

placed face down in restraints on a gurney and taken to get a hygiene inspection. In the 

hygiene inspection James was subjected to an x-ray of his anal cavity. He believes that 

other inmates who received a hygiene inspection did not receive an x-ray of their anal 

cavity. Ultimately, no contraband was found. James believes the anal cavity x-ray was 

done to detour him from continuing to file complaints against staff of the San Diego 

County Sheriff.2

                                               

1 Because this case comes before the court on a motion to dismiss, the court must accept 

as true all material allegations in the complaint and must also construe the complaint, and 

all reasonable inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. 

Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002).

2 These facts are summarized from CM/ECF pages 5 to 9 of the Complaint. Dkt. No. 1. 

Case 3:16-cv-02823-WQH-NLS Document 43 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 10
3 

16cv2823 WQH (NLS) 

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

Also on January 23, 2016, James was beaten and tasered by certain Defendants in 

retaliation for him filing complaints regarding Central Jail staff. Defendants intended to 

dissuade James from continuing to pursue legal action and filing additional complaints. 

James says he was attacked by Sgt. Blackwell, Sgt. Binsfield, Corp. Rodriguez, Deputy 

Lamont and Deputy Portillo, and that the assault was supervised by Lt. Coyne, who failed 

to intervene.3

B. February 5, 2016 Incident.4

On February 5, 2016, between 6:00 to 7:00 a.m., James was again attacked by 

deputies in retaliation for filing an internal affairs complaint regarding Lt. Duckworth and 

the January 23, 2016 assault by 10-20 deputies. The attack started when Lt. Stordan 

walked up to James’ cell door and told him he was transferring to George Bailey. James 

said he would pack his property, and as soon as he turned around, the cell door flung 

open and James was hit in the back with a shock shield. James believes there is video 

evidence that shows this attack. James says that due to this attack he suffers from 

blackouts and mental injuries. 

C. Summary of Claims and Relief Sought. 

James sues 14 Defendants, all in their individual capacities, and claims they were 

all acting under color of state law. 

 Count 1: Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, due process, free speech and access to courts, based on January 23, 2016 incident where he 

was called a child molester in front of other inmates and taken for an x-ray of his anal cavity. 

 Count 2: Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, due process, free speech access to courts, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, based on January 23, 2016 assault on James by 10-20 deputies. 

 Count 3: Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, due process, free speech, access to courts, intentional infliction of emotional distress, mental and emotional injury, corporal punishment and deliberate indifference based 

on the February 5, 2016 attack in his cell. 

                                               

3 These facts are summarized from CM/ECF page 10 of the Complaint. Dkt. No. 1. 

4 These facts are summarized from CM/ECF pages 11 to 12 of the Complaint. Dkt. No. 1.

Case 3:16-cv-02823-WQH-NLS Document 43 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 10
4 

16cv2823 WQH (NLS) 

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

 Count 4: Negligence against 9 of the 14 Defendants, including Lt. Coyne, Lt. Stordon, Lt. Duckworth, Sgt. Blackwell, Sgt. Binsfield, Corp. Rodriguez, Deputy Lamonte, Capt. Flynn and Deputy Emmens. 

 Count 5: Due process, deliberate indifference, free speech and access to 

courts based on actions of Sgt. Castro and Lt. Jones for intentionally attempting the thwart James’ attempt to exhaust his administrative remedies, asserted only against defendants Sgt. Castro and Lt. Jones. 

James seeks compensatory damages for treatment of his injuries and PTSD, 

punitive damages, and costs, including attorney and expert witness fees. Compl., p.16. 

He also seeks an injunction for these acts: (1) prevent Defendants from destroying video 

evidence from both incidents; and (2) recognition by the Sheriff’s Department of all 

physical injuries so that he can begin treatment for them. Id.

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Legal Standard. 

A Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a 

claim tests the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff’s claim. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 

732 (9th Cir. 2001). When considering the motion, the court must accept as true all wellpleaded factual allegations in the complaint. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 556 U.S. 

544, 555 (2007). But the court need not accept as true legal conclusions cast as factual 

allegations. Id.; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (stating “[t]hreadbare 

recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements” is 

insufficient). 

A complaint must “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 

550 U.S. at 570. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must include nonconclusory factual content. Id. at 555; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. The facts and the 

reasonable inferences drawn from those facts must show a plausible—not just a 

possible—claim for relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556; Iqbal, 557 U.S. at 679; Moss v. 

U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The focus is on the complaint, as 

opposed to any new facts alleged in, for example, the opposition to a defendant’s motion 

to dismiss. See Schneider v. California Dep't of Corrections, 151 F.3d 1194, 1197, fn.1 

Case 3:16-cv-02823-WQH-NLS Document 43 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 10
5 

16cv2823 WQH (NLS) 

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

(9th Cir. 1998), reversed and remanded on other grounds as stated in 345 F.3d 716 (9th 

Cir. 2003). 

In addition, factual allegations asserted by pro se petitioners, “however inartfully 

pleaded,” are held “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Thus, where a plaintiff appears pro se in a 

civil rights case, the court “must construe the pleadings liberally and must afford plaintiff 

the benefit of any doubt.” See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 

623 (9th Cir. 1988). 

B. Prosecutorial Immunity: Defendant Bonnie Dumanis. 

James complains that District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis was deliberately 

indifferent to his complaint that he filed with regards to the January 23, 2016 incident. 

Compl., p.9. He explains that Dumanis did not investigate his complaint or initiate a case 

against the Sheriff’s Deputies for their behavior on January 23. Opp’n, pp.4-5. 

Prosecutorial immunity protects eligible government officials acting pursuant to 

their official roles as advocates for the state doing functions “intimately associated with 

the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 

(1976); see also Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 341-343 (2009) (giving 

examples where absolute immunity applies, including when a prosecutor initiates a 

judicial proceeding or presents evidence in court to support a search warrant application); 

Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 912-913 (9th Cir. 2012). “[T]he functional nature 

of the activities being performed, not the status of the person performing them, is the key 

to whether absolute immunity attaches.” Stapley v. Pestalozzi, 733 F.3d 804, 810 (9th 

Cir. 2013). As such, prosecutorial immunity does not extend to those actions of a 

prosecutor that are “administrative” or “investigative” in nature. See Van de Kamp, 555 

U.S. at 342-343 (explaining that prosecutorial immunity does not apply, for example, 

when prosecutor advises police during a criminal investigation, makes statements to the 

press or acts as a complaining witness to support a search warrant application); Waggy v. 

Spokane Cty. Wash., 594 F.3d 707, 710-711 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Case 3:16-cv-02823-WQH-NLS Document 43 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 10
6 

16cv2823 WQH (NLS) 

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

“Prosecutorial immunity only protects the defendants from [§] 1983 damage 

claims; it does not protect them from suits for injunctive relief.” Gobel v. Maricopa Cty., 

867 F.2d 1201, 1203, n.6 (9th Cir. 1989), abrogated on other grounds by City of Canton, 

Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989). Here, James sued Dumanis in her individual 

capacity. In addition to money damages he seeks two types of injunctive relief that 

include preservation of video evidence and recognition by the Sheriff’s Department of his 

injuries. Neither of these requests for injunctive relief could apply to Dumanis because 

she would not control the video evidence nor is she part of the Sheriff’s Department. 

Therefore, the only viable claims against her are for money damages, for which 

prosecutorial immunity is available. 

James takes issue with Dumanis’ decision to not prosecute the Sheriff’s Deputies 

who were involved in the alleged incidents. But the decision not to prosecute is squarely 

within the protected prosecutorial duties of a prosecutor. Roe v. City of San Francisco, 

109 F.3d 578, 583 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding “a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity 

for the decision not to prosecute”). Therefore, Dumanis is entitled to absolute immunity 

for her decision not to prosecute the Sheriff’s Deputies identified in James’ complaint. 

Further, James lacks any sort of standing to compel a prosecution of those deputies. See 

Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (stating “a private citizen lacks a 

judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another”). 

Accordingly, this court recommends that Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim 

against defendant Bonnie Dumanis be GRANTED and the claims against her be 

dismissed with prejudice, as any amendment regarding her decision not to prosecute the 

deputies would be futile. See Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(holding that futility alone is a sufficient basis to deny a motion to amend). Based on the 

availability of absolute immunity this court further recommends that Dumanis be 

dismissed as a defendant because the claims against her are all factually based on her 

protected prosecutorial duties. 

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-02823-WQH-NLS Document 43 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 10
7 

16cv2823 WQH (NLS) 

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

C. Failure to State a Claim: Claim Against Defendants Castro and Jones 

for Actions Related to Prison Grievance Procedure. 

James complains that defendants Sgt. Gabriel Castro (from George Bailey) and Lt. 

Jones (works at San Diego County Jail) denied him due process and access to courts by 

intentionally attempting to thwart his attempt to exhaust his administrative remedies, and 

that they lied to James in their grievance responses when they said that the use of force in 

both incidents comported with policies and procedures and the force used was not 

excessive. Compl., p.14. James also complains that Capt. Flynn should have responded 

to the grievances, and that by having Castro and Jones respond instead of Flynn, James 

was denied an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful time and manner. Id.

A prisoner does not have due process rights related to the administrative grievance 

process. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding “inmates 

lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure). A 

prisoner’s claim that a prison official denied a grievance, standing alone, is not sufficient 

to state a claim for a constitutional violation. See Arline v. Janda, 2013 WL 4517602, at 

*11 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2013) (citing Riley v. Dunn, 2011 WL 4940855 at *7 (C.D. Cal. 

Oct. 14, 2011)). Stated differently, 

Ruling against a prisoner on an administrative complaint does 

not cause or contribute to the violation. A guard who stands and 

watches while another guard beats a prisoner violates the 

Constitution; a guard who rejects an administrative complaint 

about a completed act of misconduct does not. 

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609-610 (7th Cir. 2007). 

 The sole bases for James’ claims against Sgt. Castro and Lt. Jones regard their 

involvement in denying James’ administrative grievances. But no constitutional claim 

can lie for their involvement in that procedure. Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 860. Further, 

James’ exhibits show that Capt. Flynn did in fact respond to the grievance appeal. 

Compl., p.47. 

/ / / 

Case 3:16-cv-02823-WQH-NLS Document 43 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 10
8 

16cv2823 WQH (NLS) 

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

 In sum, Castro and Jones in no way interfered with James’ right to access the 

courts. While they denied his grievances, the denials did not interfere with his ability to 

bring this lawsuit. Accordingly, the court RECOMMENDS that Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss the claims against defendant Castro and Jones be GRANTED and the claims in 

the fifth cause of action be DISMISSED with prejudice, as any amendment of a claim 

based on the grievance procedure would be futile. See Bonin, 59 F.3d at 845. 

Castro and Jones ask to be dismissed from this lawsuit because this is the only 

claim asserted against them. But it is not clear on the face of the complaint that this is the 

only claim asserted against them. See, e.g., Compl., p.9 (alleging in Claim 1 that Lt. 

Jones lied to Sheriff Gore to cover up misconduct). The court, therefore, recommends 

denying without prejudice the request to dismiss Castro and Jones as defendants from 

this case. 

D. State Law Claims. 

James alleges the following state law claims: intentional infliction of emotional 

distress based on January 23, 2016 incident (Claim 2, Compl. p.10) and February 5, 2016 

incident (Claim 3, Compl. pp.11-12); and negligence based on both alleged incidents 

(Claim 4, Compl. p.13). 

A plaintiff must comply with the California Government Tort Claims procedure 

before a “suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity.” Cal. Gov’t 

Code § 945.4. In federal cases, supplemental state law claims are subject to this claims 

filing requirement and the law governing such claims. Karim-Panahi v. LAPD, 839 F.2d 

621, 627 (9th Cir.1988). Here, James never filed a government tort claim with the 

County of San Diego regarding the incidents at issue here. Kapualani Decl. ¶¶ 4-5. 

Further, James, in his request for extension of time to file an opposition, “does agree to 

dismiss the state tort law claims alleged in defendants’ motion to dismiss against the 

named defendants.” Dkt. No. 30, p.2. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:16-cv-02823-WQH-NLS Document 43 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 10
9 

16cv2823 WQH (NLS) 

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

Based on James’ failure to comply with the requisite California Government Tort 

Claims procedure and his consent to dismiss the state tort law claims, this court 

recommends that the district judge GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss the state law 

tort claims and that they be dismissed with prejudice. See Bonin, 59 F.3d at 845. 

Capt. Flynn asks to be dismissed from this lawsuit because negligence is the only 

claim asserted against him. But it is not clear on the face of the complaint that this is the 

only claim asserted against him. See, e.g., Compl., p.9 (alleging in Claim 1 that Capt. 

Flynn lied to Sheriff Gore to cover up misconduct). The court, therefore, recommends 

denying without prejudice the request to dismiss Capt. Flynn as a defendant from this 

case. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, this court RECOMMENDS that the district judge: 

(1)GRANT the motion to dismiss the claims against defendant Bonnie 

Dumanis and dismiss them with prejudice.

(2)GRANT the motion to dismiss Dumanis as a defendant from this case. 

(3)GRANT the motion to dismiss the claims as alleged in Count 5 against

defendants Castro and Jones and dismiss those claims with prejudice.

(4)DENY without prejudice the motion to dismiss Castro and Jones as 

defendants. 

(5)GRANT the motion to dismiss the state law claims as alleged in Counts 2, 3 

and 4 and dismiss them with prejudice.

(6)DENY without prejudice the motion to dismiss Capt. Flynn as a defendant. 

If the district court accepts the findings in this Report and Recommendation, the 

federal claims alleged in Claims 1, 2 and 3 would remain in this case as alleged against 

all named Defendants except for Bonnie Dumanis. 

The court submits this Report and Recommendation to the United States District 

Judge assigned to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No later than July 28, 

2017, any party to this action may file written objections with the court and serve a copy 

Case 3:16-cv-02823-WQH-NLS Document 43 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 10
10 

16cv2823 WQH (NLS) 

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

on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to Report and 

Recommendation.” 

 Any reply to the objections shall be filed with the Court and served on all parties 

no later than August 7, 2017. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within 

the specified time may waive the right to those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 29, 2017 

Case 3:16-cv-02823-WQH-NLS Document 43 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 10