United States District Court, D. Nevada
C. Jones, United States District Judge.
this Court is the Plaintiff's (Mr. John Redman) Motion
for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 20), where Mr. Redman asks this
Court for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (TAC) and
Motion for a Status Check (ECF No. 25). The Court will first
address the merits of the Motion for Status Check. The Court
does not provide status checks for its cases and advises Mr.
Redman to not file such motions. Motions such as these put
stress on an already overburdened judicial system. The Court
receives numerous motions every day and will not provide
status checks for its ongoing cases. The Court will address
all Parties' contentions in due course. Thus, the Court
denies Mr. Redman's Motion for Status Check.
the Court grants Mr. Redman leave to amend under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15, however, the Court must screen every
amended complaint filed by Mr. Redman in this case. In so
doing, the Court finds that Mr. Redman has not cured any of
the defects that the Court has articulated multiple times.
Rather, the Court finds that the only claim previously
allowed to proceed in the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) is
now also defective. Thus, the Court dismisses the case
without prejudice. The Court grants leave to amend to Mr.
Redman to file one final amended complaint; after allowing
Mr. Redman three amendments, if the Court finds that this
final complaint does not cure the deficiencies stated in this
order, then the Court will dismiss the case with prejudice
for failure to state a claim finding that the amendment would
be futile. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975
F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)).
case arises out of events that occurred at Lovelock
Correctional Center (LCC) and Northern Nevada Correctional
Center (NNCC). (3d Am. Compl. 4, ECF No. 20-1.) Mr. Redman
alleges that he needed dental care and that the prison staff
were deliberately indifferent to his needs. (Id.) He
further contends that the policies of NNCC promulgated by the
prison administrators motivated the doctors' actions,
thus, they are also liable. (Id. at 5.) The
Plaintiff has filed numerous complaints, and the Court has
only allowed one claim raised in the SAC to proceed-a claim
that Dr. Yup was deliberately indifferent in delaying pain
medication to Mr. Redman after surgery.
TAC, Mr. Redman alleges the following: while initially
incarcerated at LCC, a dentist completed a root canal with a
temporary filling. (3d Am. Compl. 4, ECF No. 20-1.) Shortly
thereafter, Mr. Redman was transferred to NNCC, where Mr.
Redman was not seen by Defendant Dr. Yup for six months.
(Id.) This delay caused the temporary filling to be
in Mr. Redman's mouth for almost one year. (Id.)
Dr. Yup allegedly told Mr. Redman that he would not waste
time on an inmate. (Id.)
Redman further alleges that, because of the delay in
replacing the temporary filling, he incurred an infection in
Tooth Number 15. (3d Am. Compl. 4, ECF No. 20-1.) Due to the
infection, Dr. Yup extracted that tooth. (Id.)
Without further support, Mr. Redman concludes that Dr. Yup
prolonged the delay to spite and inflict pain on him.
Redman goes on to assert that he experienced
“extreme” pain one month later, due to damage
done to Tooth Number 14. (3d Am. Compl. 4-4A, ECF No. 20-1.)
Mr. Redman says that the damage was caused by the extraction
of Tooth Number 15, and that Dr. Yup admits that he caused
the damage. (Id. at 4A.) Due to the damage of Tooth
Number 14, Dr. Yup removed it. (Id.) In so doing,
Mr. Redman contends that Dr. Yup drilled a hole in Tooth
Number 13 and “ripped open Plaintiff's sinus
cavity.” (Id.) A nurse that was present for
the operation, told Dr. Yup that he was damaging Mr.
Redman's mouth. (Id.) Dr. Yup proceeded to blame
Mr. Redman for the damage to his mouth and sent him to his
cell. (Id.) Dr. Yup neither provided pain relieving
medication to Mr. Redman nor informed other personnel of Mr.
Redman's condition. (Id.)
days later, Mr. Redman returned to the medical facility and
saw another dentist. (3d Am. Compl. 4A, ECF No. 20-1.) The
new dentist “immediately” prescribed Oxycontin to
Mr. Redman for the pain and also prescribed antibiotics for
the infection. (Id.) Because of Dr. Yup's
conduct, Mr. Redman maintains, he has had to undergo further
surgeries and there is permanent damage to his mouth.
(Id. at 4A-4B.)
TAC, Mr. Redman also alleges that Defendants, Mr. Romeo
Aranas, Mr. Isidro Baca, Mr. James Dzurenda, and Mr. Brian
Sandoval, (Supervisory Defendants) allowed Dr. Yup to
purposefully inflict harm on inmates, and they should
therefore be liable under the Eighth Amendment to deliberate
indifference for dental needs. (3d Am. Compl. 5, ECF No.
20-1.) However, Mr. Redman states no facts that evince that
these Defendants knew or encouraged Dr. Yup to purposefully
harm inmates. (Id.)
are several glaring inconsistencies between the TAC and SAC.
Mr. Redman stated, in the SAC, that the root canal was not
completed until six months after his arrival at NNCC by Dr.
Yup, but now Mr. Redman states the root canal was completed
at LCC before the transfer. (2d Am. Compl. 4, ECF No. 19.) In
the SAC, Mr. Redman said that Mr. Yup “chuckled”
after he drilled into Tooth Number 13 and “ripped
into” the sinus cavity, however, Mr. Redman does not
allege that Dr. Yup laughed in the TAC. (Id. at 5.)
Lastly, Mr. Redman now states that he received medication in
a few days immediately upon informing another dentist in the
medical facility as opposed to “remain[ing] in
excruciating pain” for two weeks as stated in the SAC.
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, when a party asks,
“[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend the
party's pleadings] when justice so requires.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). “This policy is to be applied
with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v.
Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Applying this lax
standard, the Court allows the Plaintiff to amend his
complaint at this time, especially as Dr. Yup does not oppose
the amendment. However, in so doing the Court must screen the
new complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.