Russell Keith Gault v. United States
2:20-cv-10687-PA-PVC
C.D. Cal.Sep 30, 2021Background:
- Plaintiff Russell Keith Gault (pro se) filed a Second Amended Complaint against the United States arising from incidents on January 3, 2017 and January 9, 2017 alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress and continuing harassment (Cause of Action No. 3).
- Defendant moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint; the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R); the District Court reviewed the R&R and Defendant’s objections de novo.
- Defendant argued the complaint failed to plead that officers summoned to subdue Gault were aware of his mental condition and therefore failed to state viable IIED claims.
- The Court applied Ninth Circuit precedent requiring liberal construction of pro se pleadings and concluded that, when so construed, the facts alleged in Causes of Action No. 1 (Jan. 3, 2017) and No. 2 (Jan. 9, 2017) sufficiently state IIED claims to survive dismissal.
- Cause of Action No. 3 (continuing harassment) was partially dismissed: the First Set of incidents dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim; the Second and Third Sets dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Court ordered Defendant to file and serve an Answer to Causes of Action No. 1 and No. 2 within 14 days and otherwise GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART the motion to dismiss.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of allegations that officers knew of plaintiff's mental condition (Jan. 3 and Jan. 9 incidents) | Allegations, when liberally construed, show officers were aware and support IIED claims | Complaint fails to adequately allege officers’ awareness of mental condition | Court: Liberally construed pro se pleadings; IIED claims in Causes 1 & 2 survive dismissal |
| Viability of Cause of Action No. 3 — First Set of Continuing Harassment incidents | First Set constitutes actionable continuing harassment | First Set fails to state a claim | Dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim |
| Viability of Cause of Action No. 3 — Second & Third Sets of incidents | Second/Third Sets pleaded as part of continuing harassment | Court lacks jurisdiction over those sets | Dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction |
| Pleading standard for pro se plaintiffs after Twombly/Iqbal | Pro se complaints must be liberally construed and held to less stringent standards | Iqbal/Twombly impose stricter pleading standards across the board | Court follows Ninth Circuit: pro se complaints are still liberally construed when evaluating under Iqbal/Twombly |
Key Cases Cited
- Capp v. Cnty. of San Diego, 940 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2019) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed on a motion to dismiss)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (Twombly/Iqbal did not eliminate liberal construction of pro se filings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (established pleading standard applied in federal courts)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for stating a claim requiring plausibility)
- Entler v. Gregoire, 872 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2017) (reiterating liberal construction of pro se complaints)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (a pro se complaint must be held to less stringent standards)