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.

Roberts v. Khounphixay

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

April 22, 2019

JOE JW ROBERTS JR, Plaintiff,
v.
VILMA KHOUNPHIXAY, Defendant.

          ORDER ADOPTING IN PART MODIFYING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING IN PART DENYING IN PART LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

          MARSHA J. PECHMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Parties' Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 56), Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 59), and Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief (Dkt. No. 66). Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the Objections (Dkt. Nos. 59, 63), Plaintiff's additional motions, and all related papers, the Court:

(1) ADOPTS in part, MODIFIES in part the Report and Recommendation;
(2) GRANTS in part, DENIES in part Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend in part; and
(3) DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

         Background

          Plaintiff alleges that while he was an inmate at the Monroe Correctional Complex (the “MCC”), he was punished and deprived of mental health treatment while enduring eight days of suicidal ideations and self-harming behavior. (Dkt. No. 5.) Plaintiff now brings claims for violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights against various officers and treatment staff at the prison. The remainder of the relevant facts and procedural background are set forth in detail in the Report and Recommendation, which recommended dismissal of Jack Warner, Myron Ayala, Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claims, and Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief. (Dkt. No. 56.)

         Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation's dismissal of Defendants Warner and Ayala and seeks leave to amend his complaint with additional factual allegations against them. (Dkt. No. 59.) Plaintiff also seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against use of the practices contested in this matter. (Dkt. No. 66.) Defendants object that the Report and Recommendation erred in denying them qualified immunity, did not consider “more likely” explanations for Defendants' behavior, and failed to consider that Defendants' actions were reasonable in light of the limited options available for treating suicidal or self-harming inmates. (Dkt. No. 63.)

         Discussion

         I. Legal Standards

         Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, the Court must resolve de novo any part of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation that has been properly objected to and may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

         On a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), the Court “must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). The standard of review is identical to that of a motion for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). See McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 810 (9th Cir. 1988). Thus, the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombley, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (1955)).

         II. Plaintiff's Objections/Motion for Leave to Amend

         Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his Complaint in response to Magistrate Judge Tsuchida's recommendation that his claims against ...


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.