Buckelew v. Gore
| Decision Date | 20 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 20-cv-00158-WQH-JLB |
| Parties | DION SCOTT BUCKELEW, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM D. GORE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is specially-appearing Defendants' Motion to Quash Service and Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, or alternatively, Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff Dion Scott Buckelew is a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986. (ECF No. 1-2 at 4.) This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge William Q. Hayes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Civil Local Rule 72.1 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. After a thorough review of the parties' filings and all supporting documents, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendants' motion be GRANTED on the bases that Plaintiff failed to properly serve any Defendant, and the Court therefore lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Alternatively, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendants' motion be GRANTED on the basis that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Court derives the following facts from the Complaint: On or about May 14, 2019, Plaintiff was released from Tri-City Medical Center into the custody of the San Diego County Sheriff's Department after approximately five days of "hospitalization on life support." (ECF No. 1-2 at 9.) From May 14 through May 24, 2019, Plaintiff was detained at the Vista Detention Facility in the inmate safety program. (Id.)
Around May 16 through May 18, 2019, Plaintiff "encountered" Defendant Webster, an officer of the Sherriff's Department. (Id.) On several of Defendant Webster's "routine walks," he "stared, laughed[,] and grinned" at Plaintiff, which made Plaintiff "feel worthless, alone, confused, angry, uncared about[,] and suicidal." (Id.) Plaintiff made "several verbal requests for medical and psychiatric care and treatment" to Defendant Webster, who responded by saying, "Yah, you'll see someone soon," "Not right now," "In a little while," "Should be soon," "I said later," and "Any time now Buckelew." (Id.) Plaintiff "pleaded with [Defendant] Webster to see medical and mental health [providers] due to pain, M.S. symptoms, di[zz]iness, migra[i]ne, depression, extreme anxiety, chest pains, nausea[,] and insomnia." (Id.) However, Defendant Webster lied to Plaintiff about "medical and mental healthcare treatment[,] which was extremely provoking to Plaintiff." (Id. at 10.)
At one point while Plaintiff was still detained at the Vistage Detention Facility, Defendant Webster "came into [Plaintiff's] safety cell and took [his] food, cosmetics and paperwork while laughing and saying[,] 'This is all trash[,]' and threw it in the garbagecan." (Id.) On a couple of occasions, Plaintiff asked Defendant Webster for a broom and dust pan, which prompted laughter and responses from Defendant Webster such as, "In a little while Buckelew," and "Not right now." (Id.) Defendant Webster "continued his behavior" even though Plaintiff "was scared, very distraught, depressed, very anxious, confused[,] and in severe physical and emotional pain." (Id. at 11.)
On or about May 19, 2019, Plaintiff was moved from the inmate safety cell to Housing Module Upper West 5, Cell 35, where Doe Defendant 1 "denied [him] church service." (Id.) When Plaintiff questioned "deputies" about being denied church service and requested phone access to call his attorney, he was moved to Housing Module Upper West 1, Cell 34. (Id.) Plaintiff was locked in this cell for approximately four days "without running water," despite making "numerous complaints" to Doe Defendants 2, 3, 4, and 5. (Id.)
On or about May 24, 2019, at around 4:00 AM, deputies awoke Plaintiff for transfer to George Bailey Detention Facility ("GBDF"). (Id.) Upon arrival at GBDF, Plaintiff told the transport deputy that he was not feeling well. (Id. at 11-12.) While deputies were escorting Plaintiff to Housing Area 4, Plaintiff lost consciousness. (Id. at 12.) After a medical assessment, Plaintiff was taken to a holding cell, where he encountered Deputies Milke and Mejina. (Id.)
Deputy Mejina made "several unprofessional, taunting[,] [and] belittling comments" to Plaintiff, such as "We're gonna get buck wild Buckelew," "What's wrong Buckelew, don't you wanna get buck wild Buckelew[,]" and "Don't worry Buckelew, we're gonna get buck wild, ok Buckelew?" (Id.) When Plaintiff asked Deputy Mejina why he was behaving in this manner, Deputy Mejina responded, "Don't fuckin['] worry about it Buckelew. Before we get buck wild, I'm gonna put these fucking chains on you extra tight, ok Buckelew!" (Id.) Deputy Mejina then placed a waist chain around Plaintiff "extremely tight," causing Plaintiff "severe pain" and "trouble breathing." (Id.) Deputy Mejina toldPlaintiff, "There you go Buckelew[.] [A]fter your fuckin['] leg chains are on, we can go buck wild, ok Buckelew." (Id. at 12-13.) Deputy Mejina proceeded to put ankle chains on Plaintiff, causing Plaintiff to "cr[y] out in pain. (Id. at 13.) Deputy Mejina "aggressively pulled and pushed [Plaintiff] to the county sheriff vehicle and pushed him [in]to the back seat." (Id.) When Plaintiff asked the deputies to loosen the chains, they said, "We'll be there in a while," and "Shut up Buckelew." (Id.)
When Plaintiff arrived at Sharpe Chula Vista Hospital, he made several requests to "deputies" to loosen the chains on him and for food and water. (Id.) The deputies responded with comments like, "You're fine Buckelew, shut up," and "Quit asking us Buckelew." (Id.) After several hours of waiting in "severe pain" and with "trouble breathing," Plaintiff received "I.V. fluids." (Id. at 14.) A doctor told Plaintiff that he "was severely dehydrated," and the dehydration had caused Plaintiff's confusion and loss of consciousness. (Id.) Plaintiff told the doctor he "had been locked in a cell for a few days with no running water, no water for approx[imately] 4 days, [and] no food for 17-19 [hours]." (Id.) Plaintiff was later transported back to GBDF. (Id.)
Plaintiff filed his Complaint in San Diego Superior Court on December 12, 2019. (ECF No. 1-2 at 2.) Plaintiff names Sheriff William D. Gore, Captain Lovelace, Captain Buchanan, Corporal C. Webster, and Does 1 through 5 as Defendants. (Id.) The Complaint alleges seven different causes of action: (1) general negligence against Defendant Webster; (2) intentional tort against Defendant Webster; (3) premises liability; (4) a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (5) a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (6) a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985; and (7) a violation 42 U.S.C. § 1986. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff seeks both compensatory and punitive damages. (Id.)
On December 20, 2019, Johnny D. Dears, a detainee at the San Diego Central Jail, mailed a copy of the Complaint and summons address to each named Defendant in a single envelope addressed to: William D. Gore, Sheriff of San Diego County, Sheriff Department,
///P.O. Box 939062, San Diego, CA 92193-9062. (ECF No. 1-3 at 4, 16-17.) An unspecified individual received the envelope on December 27, 2019. (ECF No. 1 at 2.)
On January 24, 2020, Defendant Gore removed this case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. (Id. at 3.) On January 31, 2020, Defendants Gore, Lovelace, Buchanan, and Webster filed the instant motion. (ECF No. 3.) Defendants move to: (1) quash service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) on the ground that Plaintiff did not properly serve any Defendant; and (2) dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) on the ground that—due to Plaintiff's failure to effectuate service—the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants. (ECF No. 3-1 at 8.) Alternatively, Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (Id. at 9-10.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants' motion on February 26, 2020. (ECF No. 5.) Defendants filed a reply on March 6, 2020. (ECF No. 6.)
Specially-appearing2 Defendants Webster, Gore, Lovelace, and Buchanan move to quash service and argue that Plaintiff failed to properly serve any Defendant under both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the California Code of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 3-1 at 8.) Plaintiff does not respond to Defendants' challenge regarding the validity of service in his opposition. (See ECF No. 5.)
A defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the plaintiff's service of process by filing a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5). Once a defendantchallenges the sufficiency of service, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that service was valid. Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 801 (9th Cir. 2004). "When a case is removed from state court to federal court, the question [of] whether service of process was sufficient prior to removal is governed by state law." Whidbee v. Pierce County, 857 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 2017) (); see also Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1082 (2020) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial