Chang v. Vanderwielen ( 2022 )

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 VICKI CHANG, CASE NO. C22-0013-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 ANDREW VANDERWIELEN, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s objection (Dkt. No. 67) to the Report 16 and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable S. Kate Vaughan, United States Magistrate 17 Judge (Dkt. No. 65). Having thoroughly considered the briefing and the relevant record, the 18 Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection, ADOPTS 19 and APPROVES the R&R, GRANTS Defendant Dr. Riddhi Kothari’s motion for summary 20 judgment (Dkt. No. 14), and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Dkt. No. 37) for the reasons 21 explained herein. 22 Judge Vaughan’s R&R summarizes Plaintiff’s allegations and the procedural history of 23 this case, (see Dkt. No. 65 at 1–3), which the Court will not repeat here. Presently before the 24 Court is Plaintiff’s objection (Dkt. No. 67) to Judge Vaughan’s R&R (Dkt. No. 65). While 25 Plaintiff titled this filing a “Declaration . . . Supporting Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend,” and went 26 on to ask the Court to “reconsider” Judge Vaughan’s earlier decision denying leave to amend, 1 (see Dkt. No. 67 at 1), the Court considers the declaration as an objection to Judge Vaughan’s 2 R&R, brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. 3 According to Rule 72, a district court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which 4 a party properly objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Objections are 5 required to enable the district court to “focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that 6 are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). The district 7 court is not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Id. at 149. 8 Plaintiff’s objections are not responsive to Judge Vaughan’s R&R. Plaintiff does not 9 dispute, for example, that Chapter 4.92 RCW applies to any tort-based claims alleged against Dr. 10 Kothari. (See generally Dkt. No. 67.) Nor does she dispute that she failed to comply with 11 Chapter 4.92’s pre-suit notice requirements before filing the instant action, or that her complaint 12 specifically alleges conduct that could only reasonably be interpreted as supporting a tort-based 13 medical negligence claim rather than a federal constitutional one. (See generally id.) For Plaintiff 14 to state a federal civil rights claim based on Dr. Kothari’s treatment, she would need to 15 demonstrate Dr. Kothari’s deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs. See 42 U.S.C. 16 § 1983; see also Sandoval v. Cnty. of San Diego, 985 F.3d 657–58 (9th Cir. 2021) 17 (constitutionally inadequate medical care requires a showing of more than mere negligence). 18 Plaintiff’s complaint provides no such facts. (See generally Dkt. No. 1.) 19 Moreover, even if Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint were timely, it would not cure 20 the ills described above, at least with respect to a potential § 1983 claim against Dr. Kothari. It 21 contains nothing more than legal conclusions. (See Dkt. Nos. 67-1, 69 (proposed amended 22 complaint and exhibit).) This is not sufficient to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.1 See 23 Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency of City of L.A., 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). 24 25 1 Although courts hold pro se plaintiffs to less stringent pleading standards than represented parties, they still must satisfy the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Brazil v. U.S. 26 Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995). 1 For the foregoing reasons the Court hereby ORDERS that: 2 1. Plaintiff’s objection the R&R (Dkt. No. 67) is OVERRULED; 3 2. The R&R (Dkt. No. 65) is ADOPTED and APPROVED; 4 3. Dr. Kothari’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No 14) is GRANTED and 5 Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Dkt. No. 37) is DENIED; 6 4. Plaintiff’s claims against Dr. Kothari are DISMISSED; and 7 5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this Order to the parties and to Judge 8 Vaughan. 9 DATED this 1st day of May 2022. A 10 11 12 John C. Coughenour 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26