Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00283/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00283-4/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

- 1 - 05CV0283

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRACEY PABON, 

CDC #C-84831,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05CV0283-LAB (CAB)

ORDER ADOPTING SECOND

REPORT AND

vs. RECOMMENDATION

STUART RYAN, DR. ARNOLD

ANGELICI, D.D.S., DR. DONALD GARSH,

D.D.S., DR. RICHARD TORCHIA, D.D.S.,

and DOES 1though 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

On February 9, 2005, Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and, at that time, pro

se, filed a complaint, alleging prison personnel were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical

needs. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that a dentist, Dr. Angelici, while performing a dental procedure,

severely injured his mouth. Plaintiff alleges that after this, he was denied adequate treatment over an

extended period and that Defendants were thus deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.

On April 11, 2005, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which Defendants

Ryan and Garsh moved to dismiss. These were referred to Magistrate Judges for reports and

recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Magistrate Judge Leo Papas issued a report and

recommendation on Defendant Ryan’smotion, andMagistrate Judge Cathy Bencivengo issued a report

and recommendation on Defendant Garsh’s motion (the “First R&R”). Plaintiff filed objections to

both reports and recommendations. On September 6, 2006, the Court adopted both reports and

Case 3:05-cv-00283-LAB-CAB Document 163 Filed 08/20/07 Page 1 of 5
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 - 05CV0283

recommendations, dismissed claims against Defendants Ryan and Garsh without prejudice, and

granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint a second time.

Shortly before the Court issued its order adopting the reports and recommendations, Plaintiff,

who had been proceeding pro se, obtained counsel. On October 2, 2006, Plaintiff filed his Second

Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which it is apparent was drafted by counsel.

On October 25, 2006, Defendants Garsh and Ryan moved to dismiss the SAC pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). As before, the motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Bencivengo for report and

recommendation, which she issued on April 14, 2007 (the “Second R&R”). The Second R&R

recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted as to Defendant Ryan, but denied as to Defendant

Garsh. Defendant Garsh alone objected to the Second R&R.

I. Legal Standards

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation

concerning a dispositive pretrial motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge to whom the case

is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any

portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific written objection has been made in

accordance with this rule.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “A judge of the court may accept,

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Thus, this Court must review those parts of the report and recommendation to which a party

has filed a written objection. Section 636(b)(1) does not require some lesser review by the district

court when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). The Ninth Circuit

has interpreted the language of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and determined that the “statute makes it clear

that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003) (en banc).

When determining whether a complaint states a claim, the Court accepts all allegations of

material fact in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the non-moving

party. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. National League of Postmasters of U.S., ___ F.3d ____, 2007

Case 3:05-cv-00283-LAB-CAB Document 163 Filed 08/20/07 Page 2 of 5
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 - 05CV0283

WL 2284349, slip op. at *2 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). However, the Court is “not required to

accept as true conclusory allegations which are contradicted by documents referred to in the

complaint,” and does “not . . . necessarily assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they

are cast in the form of factual allegations.” Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136,

1139 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

Although the Second R&R cited the now-rejected standard set forth in Conley v. Gibson, 355

U.S. 41, 45–46 (1957), see Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1968 (2007) (abrogating

Conley’s “no set of facts” standard), the Court in ruling on Defendant Garsh’s objections has relied

on the current standard and observes that the outcome is unchanged.

II. Objections

Essentially, Defendant Garsh’s objection is that Plaintiff has changed his story and his SAC

therefore relies on sham allegations. Defendant Garsh objects that the Second R&R improperly

refused to consider facts pleaded in the FAC which contradicted and undercut Plaintiff’s pleadings in

the SAC. In support of the principle that the Court should consider earlier pleadings for this purpose,

Plaintiff cites various portions of Bradley v. Chiron Corp., 136 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Reddy v.

Litton Industries, Inc., 912 F.2d 291 (9th Cir. 1990); McCabe v. General Foods Corp., 811 F.2d 1336

(9th Cir. 1987); and Ellingston v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 653 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir. 1981).

First, the Court notes, Plaintiff appears to have misconstrued the Second R&R slightly. While

the R&R refused to consider the FAC, or exhibits attached to it, in evaluating whether the SAC stated

a claim, the R&R also noted that all the allegations Defendant Garsh wanted considered were also

contained in the SAC. (Second R&R at 5 n.2 (“Defendants point to the following

allegations. . . . These allegations, however, are included in the SAC. . .”).) Thus, the Second R&R

was not refusing altogether to consider facts previously alleged, but rather was insisting that

examination of the sufficiency of the SAC be limited to examination of the operative pleading. 

In addition, the Second R&R makes the uncontroversial observation that rulings based on

allegations in a superseded pleading are not binding on the Court when it rules on Defendants’ motion

to dismiss the SAC. (Second R&R at 6:16–17 (“Any rulings based on those allegations are limited

to those allegations and that stage of litigation only.”)) As noted above, the Court is generally required

Case 3:05-cv-00283-LAB-CAB Document 163 Filed 08/20/07 Page 3 of 5
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 - 05CV0283

to permit a plaintiff to amend his complaint to state a claim, if he can. Implicit in this requirement is

the assumption that the amended pleading will be judged on its own merits, without reference to the

deficiencies of earlier pleadings. Otherwise, amendment would always be futile.

In their briefing, Defendants had sought judicial notice of certain exhibits attached to the FAC;

however, Defendant Garsh does not specifically object to the Second R&R’s recommendation that his

request for judicial notice be denied. Further, it is apparent Defendants were not merely requesting

judicial notice of the Court’s own records, but rather were requesting judicial notice of the facts

contained in exhibits included among those records. As the Second R&R pointed out, the records

consist of prison records or correspondence between Plaintiff and prison officials. (Second R&R at

6:14–15.) Plaintiff has repeatedly disputed the accuracy of prison records and of statements made by

certain officials. Therefore, the mere fact that Plaintiff attached the records as exhibits to his FAC

does not authorize judicial notice of any statements included in those records under Fed. R. Evid. 201.

Defendant Garsh has also objected to the Second R&R’s recommendations regarding his

knowledge of Dr. Angelici’s alleged incompetence. (Obj. at 9:4–19.) The Court believes Defendant

Garsh has misconstrued the Second R&R, however. The Second R&R appears to agree with

Defendant Garsh. (Second R&R at 9:17–24.) It notes, for example, that Plaintiff has not alleged Dr.

Garsh allowed Dr. Angelici to continue treating Plaintiff after May, 2004. Thus, it appears to conclude

that allegations about Defendant Garsh’s knowledge of Dr. Angelici’s incompetence after May, 2004

are irrelevant, just as they were irrelevant with Defendant Ryan. (Cf. id. at 11:11–20.)

The Court has reviewed the FAC, the First R&R, the SAC, and the Second R&R, and

concludes that, while Plaintiff has added factual allegations, they are generally supplemental facts.

For example, the SAC makes more specific factual allegations regarding what Plaintiff told Defendant

Garsh about his treatment and what Defendant Garsh knew of Plaintiff’s condition (Cf. generalized

or conclusory allegations in FAC ¶¶ 38, 55, 56 63, 65, 71; and SAC ¶ 29 (“On May 23, 2004, Dr.

Garsh met with plaintiff, and plaintiff informed Dr. Garsh of all the details of his medical treatment

and condition from May 17 to May 23, 2004. Plaintiff informed Dr. Garsh of the infection in the

injury site, plaintiff’s increased pain, and his continued inability to eat.”)). Likewise, the SAC adds

specific allegations about Dr. Garsh’s knowledge that because of his condition Plaintiff needed a liquid

Case 3:05-cv-00283-LAB-CAB Document 163 Filed 08/20/07 Page 4 of 5
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 - 05CV0283

diet supplement for a period of approximately two years but failed to see that he got it (SAC ¶¶ 32,

48). It further alleges that Plaintiff was provided with the liquid diet supplement for two weeks, but

that he was denied it because it was deemed too expensive. (Id. ¶ 48.) On the basis of these

allegations, the Court considers it a reasonable inference that Defendant Garsh, who was head of the

prison’s medical department, realized Plaintiff needed the supplement because he could not easily eat

solid food, and yet failed to provide it. In addition, the SAC adds more specific allegations about the

inadequacy of pain management which, it implies, would have been obvious to a doctor such as

Defendant Garsh. (Id. ¶¶ 47 (describing symptoms); 57 (describing the inadequacy of Tylenol and

Motrin to treat these symptoms).)

In short, while Plaintiff has added allegations, the new allegations appear to supplement, rather

than contradict, his earlier pleadings. The Court finds no basis on which to conclude the SAC is based

on sham pleadings. Defendant Garsh’s objections are therefore OVERRULED.

III. Conclusion and Order

For these reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Second R&R. The motion to dismiss the SAC is

DENIED as to Defendant Garsh, and GRANTED as to Defendant Ryan. Plaintiff’s claims against

Defendant Ryan have previously been dismissed and, although the defects in the amended complaint

were pointed out to Plaintiff, he has been unable to cure them. Therefore, the Court believes the

defects in his claims against Defendant Ryan cannot be cured by amendment. If Plaintiff wishes to

amend his complaint further, he must first obtain leave of the Court. See Chang v. Chen, 80 F.3d

1293, 1301 (9th Cir. 1996) (overruled on other grounds by Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541,

551 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 19, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00283-LAB-CAB Document 163 Filed 08/20/07 Page 5 of 5