United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS
(DOCS. 48, 49, 54 AND 56)
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
After
Cyrus Ayers killed himself while in custody, the child, E.M.
and his mother, Dana Smithee, filed this lawsuit. They allege
Ayers was not provided proper medical care during his
incarceration at the California Correctional Institution in
Tehachapi and this resulted in his death. In their third
amended complaint, Plaintiffs claim that Defendant Narayan,
Chief Psychiatrist at CCI, and Defendants Seymour and
Celosse, psychologists at CCI, are liable for Ayers'
death.
Defendants
Litt-Stoner, Seymour, Nesson and Celosse previously moved the
Court to dismiss the action. Because the second amended
complaint failed to state a federal cause of action, the
Court dismissed it with leave to amend. (Doc. 47.) On August
29, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which
only includes the following defendants: Narayan, Seymour and
Celosse. (Doc. 45.)
On
September 20, 2019, Defendants Narayan, Seymour and Celosse
moved the Court to dismiss the action. (Docs. 48, 49.)
Because the third amended complaint still failed to state a
federal cause of action, the Court recommended it be
dismissed with leave to amend. On November 5, 2019,
Plaintiffs filed objections to the findings and
recommendation. (Doc. 55.) On November 8, 2019, Plaintiffs
filed a separate request for hearing. (Doc.
56.)[1]
On November 11, 2019, Defendant Narayan filed a reply to
Plaintiffs' objections. (Doc. 57.) On November 19, 2019,
Defendants Celosse and Seymour also filed a reply to
Plaintiffs' objections. (Doc. 58.)
In
their objections, Plaintiffs contend that disregarding a
heightened risk of suicide is a question of fact. (Doc. 55 at
2-3.) They also allege that this Court has not drawn
inferences in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs. For
example, they claim that Plaintiffs have pled facts that
could support Defendants' knowledge of Ayers'
heightened suicide risk and the conscious and affirmative
decision to not provide the preventative measure of a suicide
watch. (Doc. 55 at 3.) Regarding Defendant Narayan,
Plaintiffs claim that they do allege the factual basis for
establishing a causal connection between preventative
measures, such as suicide watch, and the resulting suicide of
a prisoner. (Doc. 55 at 4.) Plaintiffs reiterate the same
allegations of the third amended complaint regarding
Defendant Celosse. (Doc. 55 at 5.) Plaintiffs assert that
there are no allegations that Defendants chose the wrong
course of medical treatment, and instead claim that
Defendants knew Ayers was a heightened suicide risk and chose
not to place him on suicide watch or recommend any medical
care to prevent his eventual suicide. (Doc. 55 at 5.) As to
Defendant Seymour, Plaintiffs take issue with their lack of
explanation regarding Ayers' requesting Defendant Seymour
to see a different clinician, stating that this explanation
could be revealed during discovery. (Doc. 55 at 6.)
In
reply, Defendants Narayan, Celosse and Seymour contend that
the findings and recommendations should be adopted. (See
generally Docs. 57, 58.) Defendant Narayan argues that
the Magistrate Judge correctly found that Plaintiffs failed
to plead facts demonstrating that Narayan was aware of an
imminent substantial risk of harm to Ayers, and Plaintiffs
failed to plead facts showing a causal connection between
Narayan's conduct and Ayers' subsequent suicide.
(Doc. 57 at 2.) Defendant Celosse contends that the
Plaintiffs' allegations show that Celosse decided not to
recommend additional treatment because she did not believe
that Ayers was acutely suicidal and made a medical judgment,
which does not demonstrate deliberate indifference. (Doc. 58
at 2.) Defendant Celosse also alleges that Plaintiffs make
contradictory arguments in the third amended complaint and
their objections. (Doc. 58 at 2-3.) Defendant Seymour argues
that the third amended complaint does not allege that
Ayers' requests to Defendant Seymour to see his clinician
demonstrated an acute risk of suicide. (Doc. 58 at 4.)
In
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636
(b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School
Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court
conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully
reviewed the file, including Plaintiffs' objections and
Defendants' replies, the Court finds the findings and
recommendations are supported by the record and proper
analysis. Plaintiffs' objections present no grounds for
questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.
Accordingly,
the Court ORDERS:
1. The findings and recommendations dated October 23, 2019
(Doc. 54) are ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint is
DISMISSED; and
3. Plaintiffs are GRANTED leave to file a
fourth amended complaint within 14 days.
IT IS
SO ORDERED.
---------