James v. Lee
| Decision Date | 11 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 16-cv-01592-AJB (JLB), consolidated with 17-cv-00859-AJB (MDD) |
| Citation | 485 F.Supp.3d 1241 |
| Parties | Kyle Robert JAMES, Plaintiff, v. Barbara LEE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; AND
Presently before the Court is Defendant Mark Kania's ("Defendant") motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 144.) The Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt for a Report and Recommendation (the "R&R"), which was issued on August 1, 2020. (Doc. No. 159.) The R&R recommends that the Court: (1) grant in part and deny in part Defendant's motion to dismiss; (2) grant Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Defendant in his official capacity; (3) grant Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim on the ground that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity; and (4) deny Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's excessive force claim and Fourteenth Amendment claims for violation of bodily privacy and his right to be free from punishment. (Id. at 29.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by August 21, 2020, and a reply to the objections no later than September 4, 2020. (Id. )
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district judge's duties in connection with a magistrate judge's R&R. 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 judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ; United States v. Remsing , 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court "need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; United States v. Reyna-Tapia , 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Thus, having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R (2) GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Defendant in his official capacity; (3) GRANT Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim on the ground that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity; and (4) DENY Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's excessive force claim and Fourteenth Amendment claims for violation of bodily privacy and his right to be free from punishment. (Doc. No. 159.)
IT IS SO ORDERED .
Plaintiff Kyle Robert James ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis , commenced this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 21, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) Presently before the Court is a motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint (ECF No. 138 ("5AC")) filed by Defendant Mark Kania ("Defendant" or "Kania"). (ECF No. 144.) Defendant moves to dismiss the 5AC in its entirety with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. ) Plaintiff filed an opposition (ECF No. 152), and Defendant filed a reply in support (ECF No. 153).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Civil Rule 72.3 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, this Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge Anthony J. Battaglia. After a thorough review of the Plaintiff's 5AC and the pleadings, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court respectfully RECOMMENDS that Defendant's motion to dismiss be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART .
Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at California State Prison, Corcoran, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. (See ECF Nos. 1, 3.) Plaintiff alleges the following in his 5AC:
On July 3, 2014, Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the George Bailey Detention Facility ("GBDF") in San Diego, California, in the custody of the San Diego Sheriff's Department. (5AC at 3.) On that day, he was handcuffed "behind his back" by two deputies and escorted to a gurney where he was "thrown (placed) face-down, placed in full restraints, and unclothed." (Id. ) The deputies then pushed Plaintiff on the gurney down a corridor to a processing area and into an empty court holding tank. (Id. )
At 10:25 a.m., Plaintiff was x-rayed in the holding tank by an x-ray technician. (Id. ) The x-ray showed "two metallic objects," which turned out to be one handcuff key and one master lock key. (Id. ) Plaintiff initially refused to turn over the keys. (Id. at 8.) One hour later, Plaintiff "eventually" gave the keys to the deputies after removing them from his anal cavity. (Id. at 3, 6.) Plaintiff was then "hogtied naked, placed on a gurney (stretcher) by deputies at the orders of the Watch Commander[,] [Defendant] Lieutenant Mark Kania." (Id. at 3.) The deputies proceeded to push the gurney with the naked, hogtied Plaintiff down the corridor to an outside parking lot, where a sheriff's transport car waited for him. (Id. ) While being transported on the gurney, Plaintiff passed a court holding tank full of inmates and numerous deputies. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff was then placed into the backseat of the transport car and driven naked to the San Diego Central Jail ("SDCJ"). (Id. at 3.)
During the two-hour incident, Plaintiff was strapped to a gurney, handcuffed behind his back, naked. (Id. ) Plaintiff "told the detectives his handcuffs were too tight[,] and he was in pain." (Id. ) One of the deputies asked Defendant if he could loosen the cuffs. (Id. ) Defendant responded, "[I]f he starts twitching, strap him down tighter." (Id. at 3–4.) Plaintiff claims Defendant refused to allow the deputies to adjust the overly tight handcuffs for a "prolonged period of time of at least 45 minutes to an hour." (Id. at 7–8.)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's "response was malicious and callous, made for the very purpose of causing harm and unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" and constituted "cruel and unusual punishment." (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant's response violated the Due Process Clause, which "protects pretrial detainees from that type of arbitrary and unconstitutional punishment." (Id. ) Plaintiff also claims Defendant violated the San Diego County Sheriff's Department policy on use of restraints by not immediately adjusting the "misapplied handcuffs." (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff alleges the handcuffs caused physical pain and nerve damage to Plaintiff's hands, resulting in numbness and causing Plaintiff to sometimes drop objects. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff hands also "shake when doing tedious tasks" because his hands are now "significantly weaker." (Id. )
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant is "responsible and the cause of the unconstitutional humiliation and degradation of [Plaintiff] caused by [his] orders to hogtie and transfer Plaintiff naked and in pain from one jail to the next." (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff states that "[t]his use of force was embarrassing, degrading, and unreasonable" and caused Plaintiff "physical, emotional, and mental pain." (Id. ) Plaintiff further claims that transferring him naked from one jail to the next in front of numerous inmates and deputies constituted excessive force, was objectively unreasonable, and demonstrated disregard for Plaintiff's due process rights and right to be free from punishment. (Id. at 7.)
Lastly, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs because the San Diego County Sheriff's Department Detention Services Bureau—Manual of Policies and Procedures ("Manual") on the use of restraints provides that "[t]he Watch Commander shall ensure medical personnel are notified and present during restraint placements," and Defendant failed to follow this policy. (Id. at 9–10, 18.) The Manual further provides that a medical opinion on placement and retention of restraints shall be obtained as soon as possible, but no later than 30 minutes from the time of initial placement, and that the inmate shall be medically evaluated for continued retention at least every two hours thereafter. (Id. at 10, 19.) In addition, supervision of inmates placed in restraints shall be at least twice every 30 minutes. (Id. ) Plaintiff complained of pain from the restraints for "at least 45 minutes," and no medical personnel was present during this time. (Id. at 11.) A registered nurse ("RN") only appeared after the "prolonged period of time" of 45 minutes to an hour. (Id. )
Plaintiff asserts claims in his 5AC against Defendant for excessive force, corporal punishment, cruel and unusual punishment, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and Eighth Amendment (if applicable). (Id. ) Plaintiff sues Defendant in his individual capacity and official capacity (if applicable). (Id. at 1–2.) Plaintiff seeks nominal and punitive damages based on "the extreme mental and emotional/psyc[h]ological damage caused by the infliction of embarrass[s]ment, humiliation, degradation, anger, extreme emotional distress, mental suffering and emotional suffering." (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff claims the events described in the 5AC caused "depression and PTSD" and "pain and injury to [his] shoulder, hands, and arm" including "nerve damage [and] nerve pain." (Id. )
On June 21, 2016, Plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Cumberland Cnty.
... ... And because assessing whether an invasion of privacy is "gratuitous" is a "highly factual inquiry," dismissal on qualified immunity grounds is often not appropriate at the motion to dismiss stage. James v. Lee , 485 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1260 (S.D. Cal. 2020). Although the Plaintiff has not cited a case holding that the right to privacy extends to the circumstances of labor, officers "can still be on notice that their conduct violates established law even in novel factual circumstances." Irish , ... ...
-
Gracia v. Nanos
... ... an officer is an agent.")). Gracia has not established ... that her constitutional rights were violated by Defendants ... following an official policy. To the contrary, she contends ... Defendants violated PCADC policy. See James v. Lee , ... 485 F.Supp.3d 1241, 1253 (S.D. Cal. 2020) (dismissing an ... official-capacity claim because execution of policy was not ... alleged to violate the plaintiff's rights, it was the ... failure to follow policy that was alleged) ... To ... ...
-
Dobbs v. O'Donnell
...inmate's “naked body is ‘only infrequent and casual' or ‘at [a] distance,' and is ‘reasonably related to prison needs.'” James v. Lee, 485 F.Supp.3d 1241, 1258 (S.D. Cal. 2020) (citing Michenfelder, 860 F.2d at 334). Likewise, an unclothed search of an inmate does not rise to the level of a......
-
Ellis v. Hammon
... ... However, the Fourth ... Amendment is not violated when the observation of an ... inmate's “naked body is ‘only infrequent and ... casual' or ‘at [a] distance,' and is ... ‘reasonably related to prison needs.'” ... James v. Lee, 485 F.Supp.3d 1241, 1258 (S.D. Cal ... 2020) (citing Michenfelder, 860 F.2d at 334) ... Likewise, an unclothed search does not rise to the level of a ... constitutional deprivation unless it is “excessive, ... vindictive, harassing, or unrelated to any legitimate ... ...