Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Redman v. Aranas

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 12, 2019

John Redman, Plaintiff,
R. Aranas, et al., Defendants.


          Robert C. Jones, United States District Judge.

         Before 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.

         Next, 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)).


         The 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.

         In the 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.)

         Mr. 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. (Id.)

         Mr. 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.)

         A few 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.)

         In the 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.)

         There 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. (Id.)

         Leave to Amend

         Under 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.

         Screening ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.