The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 35)
Plaintiffs are state prisoners who are represented by counsel. Plaintiffs initiated this civil rights action against certain Defendants Cate. (Doc. 35) Presently before this Court is Terry Steadman and Kim Holland's ("Defendants") motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 35)
Defendants were added to the litigation through a Doe amendment. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs' claims against them fail because the Doe allegations make only conclusory allegations which are unsupported by sufficient facts. Plaintiffs' do not dispute this is the case but explain they are able to state sufficient facts and complain that had Defendants met and conferred with counsel, this matter could have been resolved via stipulation.
For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Steadman and Holland.
Plaintiffs are state prisoners confined in the Security Housing Unit ("SHU") at the California Correctional Institution ("CCI") in Tehachapi. (Doc. 19 at 2.) Plaintiffs allege that they are being 4 deprived of the minimum amount of out of cell exercise. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs indicate that in the 5 four months preceding the filing of the FAC, they have received a total of 12 hours of exercise time. 6
(Id. at ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs indicate that their remaining time was spent confined in a 6 x 8 foot cell. (See 7 id. at ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs aver that the lack of out of cell exercise has had an adverse impact on their 8 physical health and mental well-being. (Id. at ¶ 17.) 9
As to Defendants named in the Second Amended Complaint, the pleadings have been settled and they have answered. However, on August 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed a "Doe amendment" identifying Doe 1 by his true name of Terry Steadman and Doe 2 by the true name of Kim Holland. (Doc. 29)
Notably, the second amended complaint alleges only that,
DOE defendants, 1 through 10, inclusive, are believed to be employees, independent contractors or agents of the State of California. Their true identities are unknown. Each of the defendants designated herein as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the condition(s) endured by SHU inmates as alleged in this complaint and is a legal cause of injury to plaintiffs. The complaint will be amended to identify such defendants by name when their identities become known.
(Doc. 19 at 5) Defendants, in essence, challenge that the complaint fails to state sufficient facts to state a claim against them.
A.Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure Rule 12(B)(6)
A motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); see also Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2003). A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for two reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory, or (2) insufficient facts ...