Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bango v. Pierce County

United States District Court, W.D. Washington

April 17, 2018

DONALD BANGO, SCOTT BAILEY, Plaintiffs,
v.
PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, PIERCE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          DAVID W. CHRISTEL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         The 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”). Dkt. 27.[1]

         The 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 dismissed.

         I. Background

         Plaintiffs 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 Dkt. 31.

         The 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.[2]

         II. Motion to Strike

         In 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.

         III. Standard of Review

         Federal 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 Cir. 1988).

         Federal 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, 2016).

         IV. Discussion

         Defendants assert Plaintiffs lack standing to bring Claim 7. Dkt. 27. The Court agrees.

         A. F ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.