Hubbs v. County of San Bernardino, Ca

• Citation: 538 F.Supp.2d 1254
• Decision Date: 07 February 2008
• Docket Number: No. EDCV 06-0292-CBM(RC).,EDCV 06-0292-CBM(RC).
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California
• Parties: Norman HUBBS, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CA; Gary Penrod, Sheriff of San Bernardino County, California, Defendants.

538 F.Supp.2d 1254

Norman HUBBS, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CA; Gary Penrod, Sheriff of San Bernardino County, California, Defendants.

No. EDCV 06-0292-CBM(RC).

United States District Court, C.D. California.

February 7, 2008.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Norman Hubbs, Coalinga, CA, pro se.

Teresa M. McGowan, San Bernardino County Counsel Office, San Bernardino, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES

CONSUELO B. MARSHALL, Senior District Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the complaint along with the attached Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman, and has made a de novo determination.

IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted; (2) defendants' Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement is denied; (3) defendants' motion is granted under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss without prejudice Claims la, 1c. 1d, 2b and 3 under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); (4) defendant Penrod's motion under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Claim i against him in his individual capacity is granted; (5) defendants' motion under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Claims 1e, 1f, 1g, 1h and 2a is denied; and (6) defendants' motion under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Claims 1b, 1i and 1(j) is granted, albeit with leave to amend, and plaintiff shall, if he chooses to pursue these claims, file a Second Amended Complaint amending these claims and raising only these claims and Claims 1e, 1f, 1g, 1h and 2a, or, in the alternative, if he chooses not to pursue these claims, file a document stating he intends to proceed only on Claims 1e, 1f; 1g, 1h and 2a, no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve copies of this Order and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation by the United States mail on the parties.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ROSALYN M. CHAPMAN, United States Magistrate Judge.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall, Senior United States District Judge, by Magistrate Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

BACKGROUND

On April 3, 2006, plaintiff Norman Hubbs, a civilly committed sexually violent predator ("SVP"),¹ who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants County of San Bernardino and San Bernardino County Sheriff Gary Penrod (collectively "defendants"), claiming numerous violations of his constitutional and statutory rights. On February 23, 2007, Magistrate Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman granted defendants' motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) and dismissed plaintiffs complaint with leave to amend. On July 30, 2007, plaintiff timely filed a verified First Amended Complaint ("FAC") against defendants under Section 1983 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq., claiming violations of his constitutional and statutory rights during the period of June 8, 2005, to June 28, 2005, when plaintiff was in the custody of defendants at the West Valley Detention Center ("WVDC") related to his second SVP commitment hearing. FAC at 1-3.

The First Amended Complaint raises three causes of action. The first cause of action is against defendant Penrod, in his individual and official capacities,² and the second and third causes of action are against defendant County.³ In the first cause of action, plaintiff alleges defendant Penrod is the person responsible for the administration and operation of WVDC, and, as such, he has implemented various customs and practices and failed to adequately train or properly supervise the jail deputies, which caused the constitutional violations plaintiff alleges occurred. FAC at 7-8. The plaintiff further alleges defendant Penrod violated plaintiffs constitutional rights under the Fourth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by:

(a) "arresting [p]laintiff and incarcerating him in the WVDC jail facility without a warrant, criminal charge, or probable cause determination for an arrest" in violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights (Claim la) (FAC at 4);

(b) "fail[ing] to follow predetermined treatment procedures as to the custody and housing of plaintiff' (Claim 1b) (id.);

(c) "permitt[ing] his subordinate deputies to arrest, shackle, transport and book [p]laintiff ... into the [WVDC] ... under the guise of Welfare and Institutions Code [`W.I.C.'] Section 6602 for a `probable cause' hearing in the San Bernardino County Superior Court[,]" whereas "`probable cause' only applies in criminal proceedings and there is no probable cause applicable in civil proceedings" (Claim 1c) (FAC at 5);

(d) "having subordinate officers arrest, shackle, strip search, and transport [plaintiff] from [ASH] to the WVDC ... because no criminal conduct or suspicion of such existed and pursuant to [California Department of Mental Health (`DMH')] Special Order 202 only DMH officers may transport a civil detainee or SVP patient outside a state hospital's grounds" (Claim 1d) (id.);

(e) failing to provide plaintiff with prescribed medications as directed by plaintiffs treating physicians at ASH and not allowing plaintiff to have the medications that were sent with him from ASH⁴ (Claim 1e) (FAC at 6, 8-9);

(f) forcing "plaintiff to spend three days and nights in a very cold ... `holding cell' in the `Male Intake' area of WVDC jail[,] where he was not permitted to have a mattress, hygiene supplies or a bed roll[,]" and where "[t]he holding cell had no bunk or functioning water faucet or drinking cup" and "[p]laintiff had to beg for toilet paper" (Claim 1f) (FAC at 6);

(g) designating plaintiff as a protective custody inmate and moving him to Unit 11, where he was provided with "a thin and well worn mattress about 2 inches thick ... that had not been sanitized..., a blanket which had large holes in it, a stained and torn towel, and a sheet that was extremely stained and mostly yellow and khaki colors whereas it had once been white," and forcing plaintiff "to sleep on the floor in Unit 11 among 10 to 14 other inmates who were held under criminal or penal statutes" and "hous[ing] [plaintiff] among criminals or penal detainees" (Claim 1g) (FAC at 7);

(h) denying plaintiff all hygiene supplies until he was able to purchase his own (Claim 1h) (FAC at 8);

(i) not providing plaintiff, who is a 61-year-old physically disabled person with a mental disorder, with a wheelchair or ambulatory aid, in violation of Title II of the ADA and instead instructing plaintiff "to walk several hundred yards to Unit 11 from the Male Intake area while carrying [a] bedroll" and while being "verbally assaulted" by the escorting deputies (Claim 1i) (FAC at 8-9); and

(j) denying plaintiff his right to court access when "all his requests for access to the jail law library were denied ... by custodial staff who cited a jail policy whereby only criminal defendants acting in propria persona are allowed access to the jail law library" (Claim 1j) (FAC at 9-10).

In the second cause of action against defendant County, plaintiff alleges defendant County approves and promulgates WVDC policies, which do not provide constitutionally adequate conditions of confinement for civil detainees in violation of the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments (Claim 2a) (FAC at 10). Plaintiff further alleges defendant County violated his constitutional and statutory rights when it transported him from ASH to WVDC using County employees, rather than DMH personnel (Claim 2b) (FAC at 11).

In his third cause of action against defendant County, plaintiff alleges defendant County deprived him of due process of law when it "failed to adhere to the requirement of service of the Petition for Civil Commitment upon him [so that] he could prepare to defend against such petition and have counsel of choice present from the beginning of judicial proceedings and [his] initial court appearance." FAC at 2. For all his claims, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.⁵ FAC at 12-13.

On August 2, 2007, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, contending it is vague, ambiguous and confusing under Rule 12(e) and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). On August 26, 2007, plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and defendants did not file a reply.

DISCUSSION

I

Under Rule 12(e), "[i]f a pleading ... is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the party may move for a more definite statement before interposing a responsive pleading." Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(e). However, a motion for a more definite statement must be considered in light of the liberal pleading standards of Rule 8(a). Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F.Supp. 1450, 1461 (C.D.Cal.1996). Thus, a motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) should be granted only where the complaint is so indefinite that the defendants cannot ascertain the nature of the claims being asserted and "literally cannot frame a responsive pleading." Id. at 1461; Wood v. Apodaca, 375 F.Supp.2d 942, 949 (N.D.Cal.2005); see also Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, § 9:349 (2006 revised) ("A motion for more definite statement attacks unintelligibility in a pleading, not simply mere lack of detail. Thus, the motion fails where the complaint is specific enough to apprise defendant of the substance of the claim being asserted.").

Here, defendants contend the First Amended...