Samuel Robinson v. Victor Kitt
695 F. App'x 259
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Samuel Robinson, a California state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state negligence law alleging deliberate indifference to serious vision problems and negligence.
- The district court dismissed his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and denied leave to file a third amended complaint after two prior amendments.
- Robinson appealed pro se; the Ninth Circuit reviews Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals de novo and denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion.
- The district court also dismissed a defendant (Kitt) even though Kitt was not part of the pending motion; the court relied on the screening/dismissal authority applicable to in forma pauperis proceedings.
- The negligence claim was dismissed for failure to allege timely compliance with the California Tort Claims Act’s six-month filing requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference to vision problems | Robinson contends defendants disregarded his serious vision needs | Defendants argue allegations show at most negligence or disagreement over treatment | Dismissed: pleading fails to show defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk (no deliberate indifference) |
| Dismissal of non-moving defendant (Kitt) | Robinson contends Kitt shouldn’t have been dismissed when not party to motion | Defendants/record invoked court’s screening authority under IFP statute | Dismissed: § 1915(e)(2) permits dismissal even if defendant not in motion |
| Failure to allege timely state tort claim | Robinson argues he timely filed or that tolling/continuing violation applies | Defendants argue plaintiff did not plead compliance with California Tort Claims Act deadlines | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to allege compliance with Cal. Gov. Code § 945.6; tolling/continuing violation not considered on appeal because not raised below |
| Denial of leave to file third amended complaint | Robinson sought another chance to amend after two opportunities | Defendants contend amendment would be futile and district court properly exercised discretion | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion after two prior amendment opportunities |
Key Cases Cited
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for pro se complaints and Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference requires knowledge and disregard of excessive risk; negligence or disagreement insufficient)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate court will not consider issues raised for first time on appeal)
- Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (leave to amend should be granted unless futile)
- Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2002) (district court has broad discretion to deny leave to amend after opportunities to amend)