Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01629/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01629-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Joseph Long,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bhaviesh Shah, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C04-1629 TEH 

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

Defendant has filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) moving the Court to

dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against two of the Defendants, Dr. Michael Songer and Dr. Daniel Thor. 

Defendant argues that these doctors did not directly participate in the constitutional violations that Plaintiff

alleges, and that relief is therefore unavailable under section 1983. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff responds

by arguing Defendant’s motion should be denied because it is untimely, and because Plaintiff does

sufficiently allege that Defendants personally participated in the constitutional violations Plaintiff suffered. 

Defendant noticed the motion to be argued on May 2, 2005. However, the Court finds that the issue

presented has been adequately briefed and that no further argument would be of assistance to the Court. 

Therefore, the hearing is VACATED.

LEGAL STANDARD

Dismissal is appropriate under either Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 12(c) when a plaintiff’s

allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6); FED.

R. CIV. P. 12(c). The Court must accept as true the factual allegations of the complaint and

indulge all reasonable inferences to be drawn from them, construing the complaint in the light

most favorable to the plaintiff. NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986);

5C WRIGHT & MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.§§ 1357, 1368 (3d e.d 2004).

Case 3:04-cv-01629-TEH Document 30 Filed 04/28/05 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Court must construe the complaint liberally, and dismissal should not be granted

unless "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his

claim which would entitle him to relief." Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1295

(9th Cir. 1998); Johnson v. Knowles, 113 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 1997); 5A WRIGHT &

MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1357 (3d ed. 2004) (quoting Conley v.

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)).

DISCUSSION

Timeliness of 12(b)(6) Motion

A motion under Rule 12(b) "shall be made before pleading if a further pleading is permitted." Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b). Defendant was mistaken to file a Rule 12(b) motion after filing an answer. However,

Rule 12(h) provides that the defense that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted can be raised as motion for judgment on the pleadings, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), and such a motion is

only precluded if the pleadings by any party are not yet closed. Id. Where a party incorrectly files a Rule

12(b)(6) motion that could have been filed as a Rule 12(c) motion, the Ninth Circuit has found no abuse of

discretion in construing the motion as a Rule 12(c) motion, Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th

Cir. 1980) (per curiam), and the Second Circuit has recently stated that to do so is appropriate. See Patel

v. Contemporary Classics of Beverly Hills, 259 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir. 2001). The pleadings are closed,

and the Court therefore will construe the motion under Rule 12(c) rather than Rule 12(b)(6).

Supervisorial Liability

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that both Dr. Songer and Dr. Thor, Health Care Managers respectively

at Wasco State Prison and Salinas Valley State Prison, “failed to adequately put in place procedures so

that plaintiff would receive minimally adequate medical care.” Complaint ¶¶ 8, 10. The complaint further

alleges that the doctors “knew that the system . . . was failing to ensure that prisoners referred to specialists

would see specialists on a timely basis and that failure was injuring prisoners.” Id. (emphasis added).

Defendant argues that these allegations cannot state a claim under section 1983 because they

amount to a theory of respondeat superior, and there is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983. 

Case 3:04-cv-01629-TEH Document 30 Filed 04/28/05 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 680-81 (9th Cir. 1984). In response

to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs rely on Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435 (9th

Cir. 1991), which concluded that the implementation of deficient policies by a supervisor can amount to

direct participation in a constitutional violation. Id. at 1446. Plaintiffs also place particular emphasis on the

Redman court’s statement that:

The requisite causal connection can be established . . . by setting in motion a series of acts by

others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the

constitutional injury.

Id. at 1447 (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978)) (emphasis added).

Since Redman, the Supreme Court has made clear that a claim of deliberate indifference made by a

prisoner against a prison official must show subjective recklessness and not mere gross negligence. Farmer

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). A valid claim must allege that the prison official “consciously

disregards a substantial risk.” See id. at 839 (embracing the Model Penal Code’s definition of recklessness

for the mens rea of “deliberate indifference”); see also LW v. Grubb, 92 F.3d 894, 897 (9th Cir. 1996)

(disapproving the discussion of mens rea in Redman). The Supreme Court’s clarification of the mens rea

requirement for deliberate indifference, however, does not alter Redman’s conclusion that a supervisor may

be found liable for inadequate supervision or the implementation of deficient policies. See McGrath v.

Scott, 250 F. Supp. 1218, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003).

Here, the Complaint alleges that the doctors failed to put in place procedures that would not injure

prisoners, and that the doctors had knowledge of this fact. This states a cause of action under section 1983

for which relief can be granted.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, with good cause appearing, the motion to dismiss is DENIED. 

Additionally, at the parties' request, the Court has vacated the current trial date. The parties shall attend a

Case Management Conference on June 20, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. where a new trial date, and all related pretrial dates, will be set. A joint case management conference statement shall be filed at least one week prior

to the conference, and shall include a proposed trial date in December 2005.

Case 3:04-cv-01629-TEH Document 30 Filed 04/28/05 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 4/28/05 /s/ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:04-cv-01629-TEH Document 30 Filed 04/28/05 Page 4 of 4