1 2
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 RANDALL STEVENS, CASE NO. C22-5862 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 PIERCE COUNTY, 11 Defendant. 12
13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on plaintiff Randall Stevens’s motion for 14 reconsideration, Dkt. 33, of the Court’s Order, Dkt. 32, granting in part defendants’ 15 motion to dismiss, Dkt. 23; Stevens’s motion to certify a question to the state supreme 16 court, Dkt. 35; Stevens’s motion to amend his first amended complaint, Dkt. 37; and his 17 alternate motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint, Dkt. 41. 18 Stevens’s motion to certify asks the Court to ask the Washington Supreme Court 19 “whether a contract between a jail and a corporation, for provision of medical services to 20 jail detainee-patients, could confer third-party beneficiary status upon the detainee- 21 patients.” Dkt. 35 at 3. Stevens argues that this is an important question without a clear 22 1 answer1 and asserts that both sides have unsuccessfully2 “scoured the nation” for 2 persuasive authority. Id.
3 The Court dismissed Stevens’s breach of contract claim for two reasons. First, 4 Stevens had not plausibly pled facts supporting the conclusion that he was an intended 5 third party beneficiary of the contract between Pierce County and NaphCare, under 6 Washington’s objective test. He instead simply stated that he was an intended third party 7 beneficiary. Such conclusory allegations are not sufficient. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 8 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
9 Second, Stevens seeks to impose on NaphCare and its employees a contractual 10 duty to provide him medical care him consistent with the standard of care, and consistent 11 with their constitutional obligations. But these duties are already imposed by Washington 12 tort law and the Constitution. 13 Stevens has already asserted medical negligence and § 1983 deliberate
14 indifference claims. He has already alleged that NaphCare is vicariously liable for its 15 employees’ negligence. Stevens’s breach of contract claim therefore was and is 16 redundant. There is nothing for Stevens or the Court to gain by certifying the proposed 17 question to the Washington Supreme Court. The question is not complex or unclear, and 18
19 1 In contrast, Stevens’s motion for reconsideration asserts that the Court’s dismissal of his contract claim was manifest error, because it is “exactly 180 degrees opposite of the law in 20 Washington State.” Dkt. 33 at 8. 2 Defendants’ motion to dismiss included a lengthy string cite to opinions from other 21 jurisdictions flatly rejecting the claim that a detainee was an intended third party of a contract for the provision of medical care. Dkt. 23 at 6. Stevens has not acknowledged or addressed this 22 persuasive authority. 1 it is not germane to the outcome of the case. Certification to the Washington Supreme 2 Court is not necessary. Stevens’s motion to certify, and the portion of his motion for
3 reconsideration aimed at his third party beneficiary contract claim, are DENIED. 4 Stevens’s motion for reconsideration also asserts that the Court’s dismissal of his 5 Monell claim against NaphCare was manifest error, because it “triangulated” on the 6 “supposedly implausible” “policy motive” of profit over care. Dkt. 33 at 8. Stevens 7 misapprehends the Court’s Order and his pleading burden in the face of a Rule 12(b)(6) 8 motion.
9 Under Local Rule 7(h)(1), motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and will 10 ordinarily be denied unless there is a showing of (a) manifest error in the ruling, or (b) 11 facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the attention of the court 12 earlier, through reasonable diligence. Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be 13 used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona
14 Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “[A] motion for 15 reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the 16 district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if 17 there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Natraceuticals, Inc. v. 18 Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). A motion for
19 reconsideration is not intended to provide litigants with a second bite at the apple. A 20 motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court to rethink what the court had 21 already thought through—rightly or wrongly. Defs. of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 22 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). 1 A plaintiff’s complaint must allege facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible 2 on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim has “facial plausibility”
3 when the party seeking relief “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 4 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Although 5 the Court must accept as true the complaint’s well-pled facts, conclusory allegations of 6 law and unwarranted inferences will not defeat an otherwise proper Rule 12(b)(6) motion 7 to dismiss. Vasquez v. Los Angeles Cnty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007); Sprewell 8 v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to
9 provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and 10 conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. 11 Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 12 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. This requires a plaintiff to plead “more than an unadorned, 13 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing
14 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 15 The Court dismissed Stevens’s Monell claim because he did not plausibly allege 16 facts supporting his conclusory claim that NaphCare had a “policy of seeking profits to 17 the detriment of standards of care.” Dkt. 17 at 3, ¶7; see also Dkt. 17 at 14, ¶69; Id. at 15, 18 ¶73; Id. at 16, ¶76; Id. at 22. The “profit motive” referenced in the Court’s Order was
19 based on the repeated allegations in Stevens’s amended complaint. He has alleged no 20 other policy. 21 Stripped of its motive, Stevens’s Monell claim—that NaphCare had a policy of 22 violating the Constitution by being deliberately indifferent to detainees’ serious medical 1 needs—is less plausible. It is no more than a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 2 Monell claim. But labels and conclusions are insufficient to state a plausible claim under
3 Rule 12(b)(6). 4 Stevens’s more detailed allegations about NaphCare’s culpability are instead about 5 the deficiencies in the care its defendant employees provided to him. He alleges that all of 6 them violated his constitutional rights and committed medical malpractice by denying 7 him medical care and falsifying his records. The plausibility of his § 1983 claims against 8 the individual defendants is addressed below. But plausibly alleging (and ultimately
9 proving) that the individual defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious 10 medical needs does not establish a Monell claim against NaphCare: there is no vicarious 11 § 1983 liability for constitutional violations. Stevens cannot prevail on a Monell claim 12 against NaphCare simply because he prevailed on a § 1983 claim against its employees.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 RANDALL STEVENS, CASE NO. C22-5862 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 PIERCE COUNTY, 11 Defendant. 12
13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on plaintiff Randall Stevens’s motion for 14 reconsideration, Dkt. 33, of the Court’s Order, Dkt. 32, granting in part defendants’ 15 motion to dismiss, Dkt. 23; Stevens’s motion to certify a question to the state supreme 16 court, Dkt. 35; Stevens’s motion to amend his first amended complaint, Dkt. 37; and his 17 alternate motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint, Dkt. 41. 18 Stevens’s motion to certify asks the Court to ask the Washington Supreme Court 19 “whether a contract between a jail and a corporation, for provision of medical services to 20 jail detainee-patients, could confer third-party beneficiary status upon the detainee- 21 patients.” Dkt. 35 at 3. Stevens argues that this is an important question without a clear 22 1 answer1 and asserts that both sides have unsuccessfully2 “scoured the nation” for 2 persuasive authority. Id.
3 The Court dismissed Stevens’s breach of contract claim for two reasons. First, 4 Stevens had not plausibly pled facts supporting the conclusion that he was an intended 5 third party beneficiary of the contract between Pierce County and NaphCare, under 6 Washington’s objective test. He instead simply stated that he was an intended third party 7 beneficiary. Such conclusory allegations are not sufficient. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 8 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
9 Second, Stevens seeks to impose on NaphCare and its employees a contractual 10 duty to provide him medical care him consistent with the standard of care, and consistent 11 with their constitutional obligations. But these duties are already imposed by Washington 12 tort law and the Constitution. 13 Stevens has already asserted medical negligence and § 1983 deliberate
14 indifference claims. He has already alleged that NaphCare is vicariously liable for its 15 employees’ negligence. Stevens’s breach of contract claim therefore was and is 16 redundant. There is nothing for Stevens or the Court to gain by certifying the proposed 17 question to the Washington Supreme Court. The question is not complex or unclear, and 18
19 1 In contrast, Stevens’s motion for reconsideration asserts that the Court’s dismissal of his contract claim was manifest error, because it is “exactly 180 degrees opposite of the law in 20 Washington State.” Dkt. 33 at 8. 2 Defendants’ motion to dismiss included a lengthy string cite to opinions from other 21 jurisdictions flatly rejecting the claim that a detainee was an intended third party of a contract for the provision of medical care. Dkt. 23 at 6. Stevens has not acknowledged or addressed this 22 persuasive authority. 1 it is not germane to the outcome of the case. Certification to the Washington Supreme 2 Court is not necessary. Stevens’s motion to certify, and the portion of his motion for
3 reconsideration aimed at his third party beneficiary contract claim, are DENIED. 4 Stevens’s motion for reconsideration also asserts that the Court’s dismissal of his 5 Monell claim against NaphCare was manifest error, because it “triangulated” on the 6 “supposedly implausible” “policy motive” of profit over care. Dkt. 33 at 8. Stevens 7 misapprehends the Court’s Order and his pleading burden in the face of a Rule 12(b)(6) 8 motion.
9 Under Local Rule 7(h)(1), motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and will 10 ordinarily be denied unless there is a showing of (a) manifest error in the ruling, or (b) 11 facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the attention of the court 12 earlier, through reasonable diligence. Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be 13 used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona
14 Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “[A] motion for 15 reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the 16 district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if 17 there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Natraceuticals, Inc. v. 18 Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). A motion for
19 reconsideration is not intended to provide litigants with a second bite at the apple. A 20 motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court to rethink what the court had 21 already thought through—rightly or wrongly. Defs. of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 22 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). 1 A plaintiff’s complaint must allege facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible 2 on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim has “facial plausibility”
3 when the party seeking relief “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 4 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Although 5 the Court must accept as true the complaint’s well-pled facts, conclusory allegations of 6 law and unwarranted inferences will not defeat an otherwise proper Rule 12(b)(6) motion 7 to dismiss. Vasquez v. Los Angeles Cnty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007); Sprewell 8 v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to
9 provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and 10 conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. 11 Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 12 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. This requires a plaintiff to plead “more than an unadorned, 13 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing
14 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 15 The Court dismissed Stevens’s Monell claim because he did not plausibly allege 16 facts supporting his conclusory claim that NaphCare had a “policy of seeking profits to 17 the detriment of standards of care.” Dkt. 17 at 3, ¶7; see also Dkt. 17 at 14, ¶69; Id. at 15, 18 ¶73; Id. at 16, ¶76; Id. at 22. The “profit motive” referenced in the Court’s Order was
19 based on the repeated allegations in Stevens’s amended complaint. He has alleged no 20 other policy. 21 Stripped of its motive, Stevens’s Monell claim—that NaphCare had a policy of 22 violating the Constitution by being deliberately indifferent to detainees’ serious medical 1 needs—is less plausible. It is no more than a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 2 Monell claim. But labels and conclusions are insufficient to state a plausible claim under
3 Rule 12(b)(6). 4 Stevens’s more detailed allegations about NaphCare’s culpability are instead about 5 the deficiencies in the care its defendant employees provided to him. He alleges that all of 6 them violated his constitutional rights and committed medical malpractice by denying 7 him medical care and falsifying his records. The plausibility of his § 1983 claims against 8 the individual defendants is addressed below. But plausibly alleging (and ultimately
9 proving) that the individual defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious 10 medical needs does not establish a Monell claim against NaphCare: there is no vicarious 11 § 1983 liability for constitutional violations. Stevens cannot prevail on a Monell claim 12 against NaphCare simply because he prevailed on a § 1983 claim against its employees. 13 A plaintiff alleging municipal3 liability for civil rights violations must prove three
14 elements: (1) a violation of his constitutional rights, (2) the existence of a municipal 15 policy or custom, and (3) a causal nexus between the policy or custom and the 16 constitutional violation. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 17 691 (1978). A plaintiff must show that the municipality acted with the requisite degree of 18 culpability, and he must demonstrate a direct causal link between the municipal action
19 and the deprivation of federal rights. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Bryan County v. Brown, 20 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997). In other words, the municipality’s actions must be the “moving 21 3 The Court assumes without deciding that NaphCare is effectively a municipality for 22 purposes of this claim. 1 force” behind the rights deprivation. Id. On the other hand, § 1983 liability cannot be 2 vicarious or premised on respondeat superior. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325
3 (1981); Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-94. 4 Stevens has not plausibly alleged facts supporting the conclusion that a NaphCare 5 policy was a moving force behind his constitutional injury, and the Court will not 6 reconsider its dismissal of that claim. Stevens’s motion for reconsideration on this point 7 is DENIED. 8 The remainder of Stevens’s motion for reconsideration asserts that the Court
9 arbitrarily “set a medical cutoff date,” before his experts have weighed in. Dkt. 33 at 4. 10 This is inaccurate. The Court logically concluded that defendant medical care providers 11 who first saw Stevens after his broken leg had healed improperly could not plausibly 12 have caused that injury to heal improperly. 13 The timeline in Stevens’s complaint is not clear about who saw him, when, nor
14 about who he alleges4 caused his injury, or how. He has yet to articulate how falsifying 15 his records, for example, caused his injury. Nor does Stevens’s amended complaint or 16 motion account for the 94 days between the date he initially “bailed out” and the date he 17 returned to the jail. Stevens does not articulate who should have done what, when, or 18 allege what would have been different if each individual defendant had done what he
19 claims they should have done. The Court will not reconsider its determination that 20 4 A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the plaintiff’s allegations, not his evidence. The plaintiff is 21 obligated to plausibly plead facts supporting a claim, but he does not have to prove his claim to survive a motion to dismiss. Stevens’s anticipated expert testimony has no impact on the motion 22 to dismiss. 1 Stevens has failed to state a plausible claim against some of the individual defendants, 2 but it will consider whether he could amend his complaint to do so.
3 Under Local Civil Rule 7(h), the Court cannot grant a motion for reconsideration 4 unless the opposing party has an opportunity to respond. 5 The Court REQUESTS Defendants to file a Response to this portion of Stevens’s 6 motion for reconsideration. The Response need not address Stevens’s third party 7 beneficiary claim, nor his Monell claim, but it should address the timeline and whether 8 Stevens could amend his complaint to state a plausible claim against any medical
9 provider defendant. 10 It should not exceed 12 pages and it should be filed by October 31, 2023. Stevens 11 may file a Reply not exceeding 8 pages by November 3, 2023. It too should address 12 whether Stevens could amend his complaint to state a plausible claim. Stevens’s motion 13 for reconsideration of the Order dismissing his § 1983 claims against individual
14 defendants, Dkt. 33, is RE-NOTED for November 3, 2023. 15 Stevens’s related motion for leave to file an amended complaint, Dkt. 37, is 16 DENIED without prejudice. His alternative motion for an extension of time to file an 17 amended complaint, Dkt. 41, is DENIED as moot. The Court will resolve the motion for 18 reconsideration after the briefing is complete. The Court will address in that Order
19 whether and how Stevens should be permitted to amend his complaint. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 \\ 22 1 Dated this 16th day of October, 2023. A 2 3 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 4 United States District Judge
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22