Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01334/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01334-11/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

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

KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv1334-WQHMDD

vs. ORDER

SELEAINA ANN THOMAS;

VROOMAN; SEPULVEDA; 

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed by the

Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 137) recommending that the Motion to Dismiss filed by

Defendants Vrooman and Sepulveda (ECF No. 133) be granted and that Plaintiff’s

remaining claims be dismissed with prejudice.

BACKGROUND

On June 19, 2009, Plaintiff, a prisoner currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State

Prison and proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action by filing a civil

rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). On May 23, 2011,

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 48). In the First Amended

Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that, while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Calipatria State

Prison in 2006, Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs

in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and all Defendants “conspired together to cover

up their actions and failures to act resulting from Defendant Thomas’ actions.” Id. at

6.

- 1 - 09cv1334-WQH-MDD

Case 3:09-cv-01334-WQH-MDD Document 140 Filed 02/19/14 Page 1 of 4
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 November 27, 2012, this Court issued an Order adopting a Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and granting Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 114). The Court found that Plaintiff failed to create a

genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant Thomas was deliberately

indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs, found that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies against Defendants Vrooman and Sepulveda, and granted

Plaintiff leave to amend his claims against Defendants Vrooman and Sepulveda.

On July 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, which is the

operative pleading. (ECF No. 132). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Vrooman and

Sepulveda were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs in August

2006.

On August 12, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended

Complaint. (ECF No. 133). Defendants contend that the Second Amended Complaint

should be dismissed with prejudice because Plaintiff failed to exhaust the prison’s

administrative remedies and the Second Amended Complaint fails to adequately allege

a claim against Vrooman and Sepulveda.

On August 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (ECF

No. 135), and on September 27, 2013, Defendants filed a reply (ECF No. 136).

On January 7, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation,

recommending that this Court find that Defendants Vrooman and Sepulveda met their

burden of raising and proving that Plaintiff’s claims against them are not exhausted as

required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (ECF No. 137). The Magistrate Judge recommends

that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Vrooman and Sepulveda with

prejudice.

On January 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed an “Opposition to the Report and

Recommendation.” (ECF No. 138). Plaintiff “incorporate[s] by reference [Plaintiff’s]

opposition to the Motion to Dismiss,” and states that if the Court dismisses his claims

against Vrooman and Sepulveda, Plaintiff requests that the Court dismiss the claims

- 2 - 09cv1334-WQH-MDD

Case 3:09-cv-01334-WQH-MDD Document 140 Filed 02/19/14 Page 2 of 4
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

without prejudice. Id. at 1. On February 10, 2014, Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No.

139).

REVIEW OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation

of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report ... to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or

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

28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

After reviewing the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case de

novo, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff failed

to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to all claims against Defendants

Vrooman and Sepulveda. See ECF No. 137 at 1-23; cf. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Griffin

v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Even if Plaintiff had properly exhausted his claims against Vrooman and

Sepulveda, the single page of substantive allegations in the Second Amended Complaint

alleges that “Defendants Vrooman and Sepulveda conspired with FNP Seleaina A.

Thomas to prevent [Plaintiff] from receiving pain meds and on two occasions to prevent

[Plaintiff] from seeing the FNP at all.” (ECF No. 132 at 3). Even if Plaintiff plausibly

alleged a conspiracy, Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege an actual deprivation of civil

rights—and based upon the grant of summary judgment as to the claims against

Defendant Thomas, see ECF No. 114, Plaintiff cannot establish an actual deprivation

of civil rights by Thomas. See Woodrum v. Woodward Cnty., Okl., 866 F.2d 1121,

1126 (9th Cir. 1989) (conspiracy allegation, even if established, does not give rise to

liability under § 1983 unless there is an actual deprivation of civil rights).

Apart from Plaintiff’s conspiracy allegation, the Second Amended Complaint

fails to plausibly allege that Vrooman and Sepulveda violated Plaintiff’s constitutional

rights. Cf. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“To survive a motion to

- 3 - 09cv1334-WQH-MDD

Case 3:09-cv-01334-WQH-MDD Document 140 Filed 02/19/14 Page 3 of 4
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

dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, to maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical

treatment, an inmate must show deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.... 

First, the plaintiff must show a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to

treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary

and wanton infliction of pain. Second, the plaintiff must show the defendant’s response

to the need was deliberately indifferent.”) (quotations omitted).

Plaintiff’s objection to the recommendation of dismissal with prejudice is

sustained; the Court dismisses the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice. See

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003) (“If the district court concludes

that the prisoner has not exhausted nonjudicial remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal

of the claim without prejudice.”). Because the Court finds that granting Plaintiff further

leave to amend would be futile, the Court dismisses the Second Amended Complaint

without leave to amend. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED

in part, as discussed above. (ECF No. 104). The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. 

(ECF No. 133). The Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice

and without leave to amend. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

DATED: February 19, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 09cv1334-WQH-MDD

Case 3:09-cv-01334-WQH-MDD Document 140 Filed 02/19/14 Page 4 of 4