United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S.
Jeremiah C. Lynch United States Magistrate Judge.
Collins filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on
December 7, 2018. After screening the complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A, the Court
determined Collins stated a claim sufficient to require an
answer from Defendants Planned Parenthood and Courtney Evans.
Defendants were asked to waive service of the summons, and
they did so. See Waiver (Doc. 9).
of filing an answer, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, relying on Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Collins responded to the motion by
seeking entry of default, but the Court denied his request
because the Rule 12 motion was timely filed. See Mot. for
Entry of Default (Doc. 14); Text Order (Doc. 15);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(1)(A)(ii), (4).
Eighth Amendment Claim
Defendants' arguments is appropriately made under Rule
12(b)(6). Defendants assert that Collins cannot proceed under
the Eighth Amendment because he is a pretrial detainee. See
Br. in Supp. of Mot. (Doc. 13) at 6-7. As Defendants concede
Collins' description of his status, see Compl. (Doc. 2)
at 4 ¶ 4, the lesser evidentiary standard of Gordon
v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 & n.4
(9th Cir. 2018), will apply to his claims. His allegation of
an Eighth Amendment violation should be dismissed.
Fourteenth Amendment Claim
argument concerning Collins' claim under the Fourteenth
Amendment relies on an affidavit and exhibits attached to
their motion. They assert that medical staff, including
Defendant Evans, “suggested that Plaintiff receive an
X-Ray as well as some other testing to determine if
Plaintiff's prescriptions needed to be changed. But,
Plaintiff declined all further treatment.” Br. in Supp.
(Doc. 13) at 3-4; Evans Aff. (Doc. 13-1) at 2 ¶ 14.
Defendants do not deem this allegation an “undisputed
fact, ” see Br. in Supp. at 4-5 ¶ III, but they
rely on it to dispute Collins' allegation that the
medication he was offered “didn't manage my pain,
” see Compl. (Doc. 2) at 3-4. Defendants may prove
their position is correct. But the complaint, on its face,
and with the liberal construction the Court is required to
accord to Collins, states a claim sufficient to require an
answer. He alleges Defendants knew his pain was not
adequately managed and could see the steps they took to
address it were not or would not be adequate. See Gordon, 888
F.3d at 1125.
motion to dismiss presents “matters outside the
pleadings, ” it may be converted to a motion for
summary judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). A defense based on
the statute of limitations is a classic example, and an
opposing party is frequently given an opportunity to conduct
discovery. See, e.g., Canatella v. Van de Kamp, 486
F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2007).
is not appropriate here. Defendants seek to introduce
evidence to contest the truth and completeness of the
allegations in Collins' complaint. “Consideration
of extrinsic documents by a court during the pleading stage
of litigation improperly converts the motion to dismiss into
a motion for summary judgment. This conversion is not
appropriate when the parties have not had an opportunity to
conduct reasonable discovery.” Zak v. Chelsea
Therapeutics, Int'l, Ltd., 780 F.3d 597, 606 (4th
Cir. 2015). Defendants' attachment of evidentiary
materials to their Rule 12(b)(6) motion demonstrates they do
not require additional time to answer. A different,
abbreviated time for filing an answer is appropriate. See
Defendant Missoula County Detention Center
separate issue, the Court previously stated that it would
recommend the Missoula County Detention Center be dismissed
because it is not an entity capable of being sued. See Order
(Doc. 4) at 2. Collins was given an opportunity to amend his
pleading to state a claim against the county, but he did not
Missoula County Detention Center should be ...