United States District Court, W.D. Washington
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
W. CHRISTEL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
District Court referred this action, filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, to United States Magistrate Judge David
W. Christel. Presently pending before the Court is
“Pierce County Defendants' Motion for 12(b)(1)
Dismissal Regarding Administration of Psychiatric Medication
to Outgoing Inmates” (“Motion to Dismiss”).
Court concludes Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate they
have standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief
related to the claim that Defendants are refusing to provide
needed psychiatric medications upon release from the Pierce
County Jail. Therefore, the Court recommends Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 27) be granted and this claim be
Donald Bango and Scott Bailey, individuals incarcerated at
the Pierce County Jail (“Jail”) at the time the
Complaint was filed, allege Defendants are failing to provide
adequate mental health treatment in violation of the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities
Act (“ADA”), and the Rehabilitation Act. Dkt. 1.
Specifically, Plaintiffs allege Defendants are: (1) failing
to provide adequate mental health screenings (“Claim
1”); (2) ignoring clear signs of mental illness and
requests for treatment (“Claim 2”); (3) refusing
to provide necessary treatment for mental illnesses
(“Claim 3”); (4) delaying and denying basic
mental health care, including medications (“Claim
4”); (5) punishing Plaintiffs for non-violent behaviors
caused by their mental illnesses (“Claim 5”); (6)
housing Plaintiffs in solitary confinement despite clinically
proven negative impacts of isolation on individuals with
mental illness (“Claim 6”); and (7) refusing to
provide needed psychiatric medications upon release from the
Jail (“Claim 7”). Id.; see also
only claim at issue in the Motion to Dismiss is Claim 7.
See Dkt. 27. On February 2, 2018, Defendants filed
the Motion to Dismiss asserting Plaintiffs do not have
standing to bring Claim 7. Id. Plaintiffs filed a
Response on February 26, 2018, and Defendants filed a Reply
on March 2, 2018. Dkt. 31, 34. The Court heard oral argument
on March 29, 2018.
Motion to Strike
support of the Motion to Dismiss, Defendants filed copies of
portions of Plaintiffs' state court criminal records.
See Dkt. 28. In their Response, Plaintiffs included
a single sentence requesting the Court strike the state court
criminal records, stating, “[T]he court records do not
establish Defendants' contention, which itself is
inadmissible to the extent it is based on speculation and
conjecture, and thus should be stricken.” Dkt. 31, p.
9. Here, Plaintiffs provide no argument explaining why the
state court records submitted by Defendants or
Defendants' arguments are based on speculation and
conjecture. See id. Further, Plaintiffs provide no
legal authority supporting their request to strike the
records. The Court also notes that, during oral argument,
Plaintiffs cited to the state court records submitted by
Defendants. As such, the Court finds Plaintiffs have not
shown it is appropriate to strike the state court records
provided by Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion
to strike is denied.
Standard of Review
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes the dismissal of
a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. A complaint must be dismissed under Rule
12(b)(1) if, considering the factual allegations in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, the action: (1) does not
arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States, or does not fall within one of the other enumerated
categories of Article III Section 2 of the Constitution; (2)
is not a case or controversy within the meaning of the
Constitution; or (3) is not one described by any
jurisdictional statute. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186,
198 (1962); see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal
question jurisdiction). When determining subject matter
jurisdiction, the Court it is not restricted to the face of
the pleadings and may review any evidence to resolve factual
disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction.
McCarthy v. United States, 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and are presumed
to lack subject matter jurisdiction until the plaintiff
establishes otherwise. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.
of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); see also Miguel v.
Country Funding Corp., 309 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir.
2002). Once subject matter jurisdiction has been challenged,
the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing it.
Id. Furthermore, in a class action, a named
plaintiff must show that he himself is subject to a
likelihood of future injury. See Matera v. Google
Inc., 2016 WL 5339806, at *15 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23,
assert Plaintiffs lack standing to bring Claim 7. Dkt. 27.
The Court agrees.