Wathen v. Scala et al, No. 2:2008cv02212 - Document 67 (D. Ariz. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING Demetri Soto, Edith Martinez, and John Scala's motion 45 to dismiss with prejudice. This, of course, is without prejudice to the right of plaintiff to bring an action in state court for wrongful death. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENY ING defendants' motion 65 for extension of time to file a dispositive motion on grounds of mootness. Together with our Order of August 25, 2009 doc. 34 , all the claims against all the parties have been resolved. The clerk shall enter final judgment. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 5/13/10.(KMG)

Download PDF
Wathen v. Scala et al 1 Doc. 67 WO 2 3 4 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Vera Wathen, surviving spouse and) personal representative of the Estate of) ) Christopher E. Wathen, deceased, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ) John Scala, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) No. CV-08-02212-PHX-FJM ORDER 16 17 The court has before it defendants Demetri Soto, Edith Martinez, and John Scala’s 18 motion to dismiss (doc. 45), plaintiff Vera Wathen’s response (doc. 50), and defendants’ 19 reply (doc. 53). We also have before us defendants’ inquiry as to the status of their motion 20 (doc. 64), and their motion for extension of time to file a dispositive motion (doc. 65). 21 I. 22 On December 4, 2006, Christopher Wathen, plaintiff’s late husband, was severely 23 beaten by two fellow inmates at the Arizona State Prison Complex-Yuma in San Luis, 24 Arizona. Aaron Chambers and Christopher Harley attacked Wathen in the prison yard while 25 he was in line with other inmates to go to a dining area. He died from his injuries after being 26 taken to a hospital. 27 Around 7:00 A.M. on the day of the attack, plaintiff alleges that Officer Soto allowed 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Chambers to leave his housing unit and proceed through the prison yard to the dining area 2 for an early meal. According to plaintiff, he was only authorized to be in his cell or on the 3 recreation field during the early meal. Officer Martinez allegedly saw Chambers in line for 4 the early meal, but she did not direct him back to his cell. At 7:35 A.M., Sergeant Scala 5 allegedly instructed Chambers to leave the dining area and return to his housing unit, but he 6 did not escort him or notify the housing unit or the prison yard tower of the inmate’s 7 movements, contrary to procedure. At 7:48 A.M., Scala allowed Harley to leave the dining 8 area and proceed through the yard to a medical unit for an 8:00 A.M. appointment, but he did 9 not escort him or notify the medical unit or the tower. Chambers and Harley then attacked 10 Wathen in the yard in front of the housing unit. 11 Plaintiff alleges “upon information and belief” that defendants “knew of the plan to 12 attack Mr. Wathen and facilitated the attack” by either allowing Chambers to leave the 13 housing unit, allowing him to remain in the yard, or allowing Chambers and Harley to enter 14 the yard from the dining area. Amended Complaint ¶¶ 18, 24, 27. She also alleges that 15 defendants conspired to facilitate the attack, as evidenced by their coordinated behavior. 16 Alternatively, she alleges that defendants “should have detected and prevented the attack on 17 Mr. Wathen, or should have taken reasonable precautions to protect Mr. Wathen from the 18 attack, or acted with callous indifference to the attack on Mr. Wathen.” Id. 19 In December 2008, plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging 20 violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments on behalf of Wathen’s estate and 21 herself as a surviving spouse. Along with claims against the Director of the Arizona 22 Department of Corrections and the prison warden, she alleged that unidentified correctional 23 officers failed to intervene adequately when Wathen was attacked. In May 2009, plaintiff 24 amended her complaint to name defendants and include the above allegations specific to 25 them. We granted a motion to dismiss by the ADOC director and prison warden in our Order 26 of August 25, 2009 (doc. 34). In October 2009, defendants moved to dismiss for failure to 27 state a claim and on the basis of qualified immunity. Unfortunately, their motion remained 28 pending due to administrative oversight. -2- 1 II. 2 Prison officials who fail to protect inmates from violence at the hands of other inmates 3 through deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm violate the Eighth 4 Amendment. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1976 (1994). To state 5 a claim under § 1983 and the Eighth Amendment, plaintiff must show that defendants knew 6 of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate safety. Id. at 837, 1979. That is, defendants 7 must have been aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial 8 risk of serious harm existed, and they must have drawn the inference. Id. 9 Defendants contend that plaintiff’s allegations concerning their knowledge of a plan 10 to attack Wathen and their intentions to facilitate such an attack should not be accepted as 11 true. We agree. Under Rule 8(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., a complaint must contain sufficient 12 factual allegations to state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __ U.S. __, __, 129 13 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). We must accept factual allegations as true and draw reasonable 14 inferences from them in plaintiff’s favor, but we need not accept the truth of legal 15 conclusions couched as factual allegations. Id. at __, 1949-50. Plaintiff’s allegations that 16 defendants knew of and intentionally facilitated the attack on Wathen are conclusory and 17 stated merely on information and belief. Plaintiff concedes that she lacks factual support for 18 these allegations beyond what she describes as defendants’ coordinated behavior. Allowing 19 Chambers to attend the early meal, failing to direct him back to his cell, and instructing 20 Chambers and Harley to cross a prison yard, however, do not suggest that defendants 21 coordinated their behavior, knew of a plan to attack Wathen, or intentionally facilitated one. 22 Next, defendants argue that plaintiff’s remaining allegations are insufficient to state 23 a claim for deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. In response, plaintiff 24 asserts that she had difficulty obtaining information necessary to state a claim, and she offers 25 additional facts not included in her amended complaint. We will consider these issues below. 26 On the face of the amended complaint, plaintiff’s allegations do not support a reasonable 27 inference that Chambers lacked authorization to attend the early meal because he posed a 28 substantial risk of serious harm to the other inmates, or that he or Harley otherwise posed -3- 1 such a risk. Thus, the allegations that Soto and Martinez allowed Chambers to leave a 2 housing unit and stay in line for the early meal are insufficient to allege deliberate 3 indifference to an excessive risk to inmate safety. Moreover, while Scala’s alleged failure 4 to follow procedure by escorting Chambers and Harley or notifying someone of their 5 movements when he directed them to cross the prison yard may suggest negligence, it is 6 insufficient to state a plausible claim under the Eighth Amendment’s deliberate indifference 7 standard. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 836, 114 S. Ct. at 1978 (requiring subjective recklessness 8 instead of mere negligence to show deliberate indifference). 9 Plaintiff’s failure to adequately plead deliberate indifference under the Eighth 10 Amendment defeats all of her claims. Her § 1983 claim on behalf of Wathen’s estate fails 11 in the absence of an Eighth Amendment violation. Id. at 837, 1979. She also alleges a 12 personal § 1983 claim under the Fourteenth Amendment on the theory that Wathen’s death 13 deprived her of a liberty interest in familial association without due process. However, the 14 general standard for such a claim is “shocks the conscience,” of which “deliberate 15 indifference” is a subset. Porter v. Osborn, 546 F.3d 1131, 1137 (9th Cir. 2008). Because 16 deliberate indifference is the standard most applicable to the facts of this case, plaintiff’s 17 personal § 1983 claim fails as well. Moreover, plaintiff’s § 1983 claim based on a 18 conspiracy to violate constitutional rights cannot stand without a constitutional violation. 19 San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego Employees’ Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725, 740 (9th 20 Cir. 2009). Thus, plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal. 21 Defendants also maintain that plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed because they are 22 entitled to qualified immunity. “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government 23 officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly 24 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have 25 known.” Pearson v. Callahan, __ U.S. __, __, 129 S. Ct. 808, 815 (2009) (quotation 26 omitted). As just discussed, plaintiff fails to state a claim against defendants based on their 27 violation of a statutory or constitutional right. Therefore, we conclude that defendants are 28 entitled to qualified immunity. -4- 1 Finally, we must decide whether to dismiss plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. We need 2 not grant leave to amend where it would prejudice the opposing party, it is sought in bad 3 faith, it would produce an undue delay, or it is futile. AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist 4 W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951(9th Cir. 2006). Given the context of this case and her difficulties 5 obtaining information, plaintiff contends that she should be allowed to development her 6 claims through formal discovery. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit the 7 development of insufficient complaints through the discovery process, however, and this is 8 particularly important where government officials are entitled to qualified immunity. Iqbal, 9 __ U.S. at __, 129 S. Ct. at 1953. 10 Plaintiff also offers additional facts in her response that we will consider in our 11 inquiry. First, she alleges that Chambers and Harley had known gang affiliations. These 12 allegations would not change the result of our analysis under the deliberate indifference 13 standard. Second, she attaches an internal memorandum from the prison, which apparently 14 formed the basis of her amended complaint. The memorandum includes information that 15 tends to undermine plaintiff’s claims. It clarifies that Chambers was not authorized to go to 16 the early meal because he was part of an “AM Trash Crew” that was not to be sent to work 17 until the completion of the morning meal. Response, Ex. A at 10. The memorandum also 18 suggests that, after Scala directed Chambers to return to his housing unit, Martinez noticed 19 that he was in the yard without authorization and notified the tower to make a “yard out-call.” 20 Id. at 13. Plaintiff does not point to additional information from the memorandum that would 21 support her claims, and we find none. Because amendment would be futile, we grant 22 defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. 23 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED GRANTING Demetri Soto, Edith Martinez, and 24 John Scala’s motion to dismiss with prejudice (doc. 45). This, of course, is without prejudice 25 to the right of plaintiff to bring an action in state court for wrongful death. 26 27 28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING defendants’ motion for extension of time to file a dispositive motion on grounds of mootness (doc. 65). Together with our Order of August 25, 2009 (doc. 34), all the claims against all the -5- 1 2 parties have been resolved. The clerk shall enter final judgment. DATED this 13th day of May, 2010. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.