C.K. et al v. Golden et al, No. 3:2009cv01496 - Document 30 (D. Or. 2010)

Court Description: Opinion and Order. Motion to Dismiss 17 is DENIED. Order staying discovery is lifted. Scheduling order to follow. Signed on 8/5/10 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (dmd)

Download PDF
C.K. et al v. Golden et al Doc. 30 FILED'lO RUG G'515G7USDC{I(P IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON C.K., an individual; ET AL., Plaintiffs, ) ) ) Civil No. 09-1496-JO ) v. PA GOLDEN; ET AL., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) OPINION AND ORDER Michelle R. Burrows MICHELLE R. BURROWS, PC. 618 N.W. Glisan, Suite 203 Portland, OR 97209 Vonda M. Sargent LAW OFFICES OF VONDA M. SARGENT, PLLC 119 First Avenue South, Suite 320 Seattle, WA 98104 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dockets.Justia.com Jacqueline S. Kamins Kristin A. Winges-Yanez OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1162 Court Street, N .E. Salem, OR 97301 Attorneys for Defendants JONES, Judge: I Plaintiffs C.K., S.S., C.M., and F.A. bring this action for sexual assault under 42 U.S.C. § 198] against defendants Golden, Yancey, Marlin, and Lyons for violation of the Eighth and Fourt enth Amendments. Plaintiffs allege that defendant Golden, a civilian manager working for the 0 ,egon Department of Corrections ("ODOC"), sexually assaclted them while they were incarc rated at Coffee Creek Correctional Institution and that defendants Yancey, Marlin, and Lyon prison officials, caused plaintiffs' injuries by failing to adequately supervise Golden. This case is before the court on defendants Yancey, Marlin, and Lyons' Federal Rcle of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (#17) plaintiffs' § 1983 claims. For the reasons stated! the motion is denied. STANDARD A complaint may survive a Rcle 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim if it con 'ns "'enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Coto Settlement v. Eislnberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, _U.S. _,129 S.Ct. f937, 1949 (2009)). The court must "'construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the pIFtiff[S], taking all [their] allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences from I the ctPlaint in [their] favor.'" Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan. Inc., 579 F.3d 943, 949 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Doe v. United States, 419 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2005)). I I 2 - dINION AND ORDER I I DISCUSSION I. I Eighth Amendment Claim , A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment for failing to prevent hann to an inmate , when (1) the official's act or omission poses a "substantial risk of serious hann" .and (2) his or her , "state jofmind is one of 'deliberate indifference' to inmate health or safety." Fanner v. Brenann, , 9'S, 825, 835 (1994). "Deliberate indifference" is equivalent to recklessly disregarding a , 511 knoWIit risk. Id. at 836. "The official must both be aware offacts from which the inference could I - be drajwn that a substantial risk of serious hann exists, and he must also draw the inference." Id. at 3871. A prison official does not violate the Eighth Amendment by failing to eliminate a substaftial risk of serious hann that he should have perceived but did not. Id. at 838; see also Togudhi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (if the prison official "should have been I I aware 10f the risk, but was not, then the [official] has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matte1 how severe the risk"). Whether the official had the requisite knowledge is a question of fact, 'fhich may be shown by circumstantial evidence. Id. at 842. The defendant prison officials assert that plaintiffs have failed to allege that they actually knew pf Golden'S wrongdoing. According to defendants, plaintiffs allege no more than state law ｮ･ｧｬｩｾ｣＠ claims; i.e., that they should have known of Golden's wrongdoing. , I Because this is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, my review is limited to plaintiffs' allegations set forth ip the Complaint. Plaintiffs allege that defendants knew about rumors concerning Golden , , and ｦｾｬ･､＠ to adequately supervise Golden during the day. Complaint, ｾ＠ 25. According to , , plaintiffs, defendants received several inmate complaints about Golden, but either did nothing or I move<il the complainants out of the physical plant that Golden supervised. Complaint, ｾ＠ 25. I 3- ï½ ï½¾ï½ ï½ ï¼  AND ORDER Plaintiffs further allege that these defendants engaged in "non-interested, indifferent, and wilfully ignora;nt supervisory practice[s]," and defendants ignored "complaints, evidence of abuse, and the obvious and clear record of a serial predatory sex offender in their midst." See. e.g., Complaint, '\1'\183, :84. These allegations are barely sufficient to show that defendants were aware of facts conceJining Golden's conduct from which they could and actually did infer that his conduct posed a substantial risk of serious harm to these plaintiffs; however, they are sufficient to meet the notice;pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which merely requires a "short:and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."! ｾｵ｡ｬｩｦ･､＠ 2. Immunity Defendants argue that qualified immunity shields them from suit because plaintiffs have failed to allege that they violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights under a standard supported by clearlx established federal law. I do not reach this issue at this juncture because the parties have yet to engage in discovery. 1 Although no motion is before the court, we note confusion in the allegations in that plaintiffs claim that defendant Golden sexually assaulted plaintiffs by, for example, forcing plaintiffs to expose their breasts, touching plaintiffs' breasts, and taking sexually explicit photoiraphs of plaintiffs, see. e.g., Complaint '\I 77(3)(a)-(b), (d), (t), but, also allege, for example, that all defendants physically restrained, sexually touched or sodomized, kidnaped, and causeq serious bodily harm to plaintiffs. See. e.g., Complaint '\177(1). Plaintiffs should consider filing fill amended complaint to clear up this confusion. I 4 - OIlINION AND ORDER CONCLUSION Defendants'Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (#17) is DENIED. Order staying discovery is lifted. Scheduling order to follow . DATED this ｾ＠ ...J- day of August, 2010. 5 - OPINION AND ORDER

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.