(PC) Jakubowski v. Clendenin

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 DAVID JAKUBOWSKI, ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-00897 JLT EPG (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 13 v. ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS ) 14 STEPHANIE CLENDENIN, et al., ) (Docs. 12, 16) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 )

17 David Jakubowski is a civil detainee and seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of 18 his civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment while housed at the Department of State Hospitals, 19 Coalinga. (See generally Doc. 1.) Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 20 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which 21 relief may be granted. (Doc. 12.) 22 The magistrate judge found Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim regarding the right 23 to access adequate mental health treatment was premised on an incorrect legal standard. (Doc. 16 at 7.) 24 The magistrate judge noted Defendants argued Plaintiff “failed to adequately plead the elements of an 25 Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs,” (id.) and found this is 26 not the standard that applies to civilly committed detainees such as Plaintiff. (Id. at 7-9.) In addition, 27 the magistrate judge observed that “none of the cases Defendants rely upon in their motion to dismiss 28 involve civilly committed detainees—let alone those held under the [Sexually Violent Predator Act].” 1 || Ud. at 9.) Because the cited authorities did not “address the rights of civil detainees,” the magistrate 2 judge found “they have no bearing on Plaintiffs claims.” (/d. at 9.) 3 The magistrate judge also rejected Defendants’ arguments regarding Plaintiff's second claim | 4 || the right to be free from punishment as a civil detainee. (Doc. 16 at 10-14.) The magistrate judge ag 5 || found “Defendants’ position is based on an erroneous legal standard” because Defendants maintainec 6 || Plaintiff failed to show they acted with deliberate indifference. (Ud. at 12.) Instead, the magistrate 7 judge found “the substantive due process standard applies” to individuals such as Plaintiff. (/d. at 12. 8 || 13, citing Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931-32 (9th Cir. 2004).) Therefore, the magistrate judge 9 || recommended the Court deny Defendants motion to dismiss. (Jd. at 14.) 10 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that an 11 || objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 16 at 14.) The Court advised the parties that the “failure t 12 || file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver rights on appeal.” (/d., citing 13 || Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants filed 14 || objections, and the time to do so has passed. 15 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 16 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 17 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 18 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated February 18, 2025 (Doc. 16) are 19 ADOPTED in full. 20 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) is DENIED. 21 3. The matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 |! Dated: _-March 25, 2025 ( LAW pA L. wan 25 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28