A prisoner's prior settlement does not automatically block his new medical care lawsuit.

Record source: CourtListener

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON JEFFREY AIDEN MENDENHALL, Case No. 6:25-cv-02426-MTK Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. MICHAEL REESE, et al., Defendants. KASUBHAI, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Jeffrey Aiden Mendenhall (“Plaintiff”) brings § 1983 claims for violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and state law claims against thirty-four individuals and John or Jane Does employed by the Oregon Department of Corrections ("Defendants"). Compl. ¶ I.B, 12. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide him with adequate medical treatment after he was injured at Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution. Compl. 4-5, ECF No. 2. Defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim. For the reasons below, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) is denied. BACKGROUND In September 2021, Plaintiff suffered severe burns after another adult in custody threw three gallons of 210-degree water on Plaintiff while they were working in a kitchen in Eastern Oregon Correctional Institute. Compl. ¶¶ IV.D, V.; Mendenhall v. Griner, No. 23-cv-01255, 2024 WL 4950276, at *1, (D. Or. Dec. 2, 2024) (hereinafter “Mendenhall I”). In August 2023, Plaintiff filed an action against Oregon state officials for failing to protect him from the other adult in custody and for providing inadequate medical care for the resulting injuries to his left ear. Mendenhall I, 2024 WL 4950276, at *1-2. Plaintiff alleged that the state officials refused to send him to the hospital, gave him burn cream and pills that did not improve his condition, and did not arrange for him to have a needed operation to repair his ear. Id. at *2. Plaintiff’s inadequate medical care claims proceeded to summary judgment in that case but failed because Plaintiff did not exhaust his available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Id. at *4-5. Plaintiff then settled his suit with the state officials on March 20, 2025, receiving $5,000 in exchange for a release of his claims. Hall Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4, ECF No. 15; Ex. 101 at 1-2, ECF No. 15-1. Plaintiff filed this action on December 29, 2025. Compl. 1. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide him with adequate medical care for the burns he suffered in 2021 by, among other actions, delaying his surgery until August 2025. Compl. ¶ IV. Plaintiff alleges this delay compromised his inner ear bones, caused tinnitus to develop in his ear, permanently impaired his hearing, and resulted in anxiety issues. Compl. ¶¶ IV.-V. Defendants move to dismiss all claims on grounds that (1) they are barred by claim preclusion and (2) Plaintiff released Defendants from liability in the prior settlement agreement. Defendants conceded their claim preclusion argument in their reply brief. Defs.’ Reply Supp. Mot. Dismiss 1, ECF No. 20 (acknowledging “the lack of a final adjudication” with respect to Plaintiff’s inadequate medical care claim); see Obrien v. Bisignano, 142 F.4th 687, 694 n.6 (9th Cir. 2025) (“[E]ven where there is, strictly speaking, no procedural default or forfeiture, a party's failure in a reply brief to respond to a particular argument raised in an opponent's answering briefing may nonetheless be construed as an abandonment of certain arguments or claims.”). The Court therefore only considers Defendants’ argument that the prior settlement bars Plaintiff’s claims. STANDARDS A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim may be granted only when there is no cognizable legal theory to support the claim or when the complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to state a facially plausible claim for relief. L.A. Lakers, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 869 F.3d 795, 800 (9th Cir. 2017). In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint’s factual allegations, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded material facts alleged in the complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. To be entitled to a presumption of truth, allegations in a complaint “may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action, but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). All reasonable inferences from the factual allegations must be drawn in favor of the plaintiff. L.A. Lakers, 869 F.3d 795 at 800. The court need not, however, credit the plaintiff’s legal conclusions that are couched as factual allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). A complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to “plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery and continued litigation.” Starr, 652 F.3d at 1216. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A court must liberally construe complaints filed by a pro se plaintiff and afford the plaintiff the benefit of any reasonable doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). DISCUSSION Defendants attached the March 20, 2025, settlement agreement (“Settlement”) to their Motion to Dismiss and rely on it to argue that Plaintiff fails to state a claim. Generally, a court may not rely on matters outside the pleadings to resolve a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). “There are two exceptions to this rule: the incorporation-by-reference doctrine, and judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201.” Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 998 (9th Cir. 2018). A court’s review of a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6) is therefore limited to “the complaint, materials incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which the court may take judicial notice.” Trader Joe’s Co. v. Trader Joe’s United, 150 F.4th 1040, 1048 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting Abcarian v. Levine, 972 F.3d 1019, 1022 (9th Cir. 2020)). The Court denies Defendants’ Motion because it relies on a settlement agreement that is not subject to judicial notice or incorporation by reference and improperly relies on material outside the pleadings to assert an affirmative defense. I. Defendants’ Arguments Defendants fail to offer any argument that the Settlement is properly noticeable or incorporated into the complaint. Defendants cite the Court’s “inherent power to enforce summarily a settlement agreement involving an action pending before it.” Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss 5, ECF No. 14 (quoting In re Suchy, 786 F.2d 900, 902-03 (9th Cir. 1985)). While courts generally do possess such power, that power alone does not enable a court, in a subseque

Official opinion source