Do v. California Corrections Health Care Services
- Beth Freeman
- 5:23-cv-05906
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Do v. CA Corrections Health Care Services, Judge Freeman allowed two Eighth Amendment claims to proceed, dismissed one claim, and ordered service.
Minh Cong Do, Nurse Hakaki, and Dr. Thomas Bzoskie; the case proceeds against Hakaki and Bzoskie on specified claims, while the deliberate-indifference claim against Hakaki was dismissed.
What happened
In Minh Cong Do v. CA Corrections Health Care Services, Minh Cong Do, a state inmate, alleged that a vaccine injection caused nerve damage and reduced movement in his left arm. He sued under a federal civil-rights law against medical staff at Pelican Bay State Prison.
The court found that Do sufficiently alleged that Dr. Thomas Bzoskie disregarded his serious medical needs after Do reported pain, numbness, and reduced movement. The court also found that Do sufficiently alleged that Nurse Hakaki used excessive force when administering the injection, but Do did not adequately allege that Hakaki was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered the case to proceed on the excessive-force claim against Nurse Hakaki and the deliberate-indifference claim against Dr. Bzoskie. The judge dismissed the deliberate-indifference claim against Nurse Hakaki for failure to state a claim, ordered service of the defendants, and set deadlines for further motions.
The detailed version
- Do v. California Corrections Health Care Services · No. 5:23-cv-05906
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 3, 2024
Background
Minh Cong Do filed this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority. Do was housed at Calipatria State Prison and had formerly been housed at Pelican Bay State Prison. His original complaint alleged medical malpractice, medical negligence, and inadequate medical care involving a vaccine shot administered by Nurse Hakaki on March 29, 2023. Do alleged that the shot caused nerve damage in his left arm and partial loss of mobility.
The court previously dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend. Do then filed an amended complaint naming only Nurse Hakaki and Dr. Thomas Bzoskie as defendants.
Screening and Claims
Because Do is a prisoner seeking relief from government-related defendants, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule that pro se pleadings must be read liberally.
Do alleged that Nurse Hakaki pushed the needle into his left arm with unnecessary force, causing unnecessary and wanton pain. The court concluded that these allegations did not establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Instead, the allegations, read liberally, stated an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim based on the assertion that Hakaki administered the shot maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.
Do also alleged that, after he reported pain, numbness, and loss of mobility during a video appointment, Dr. Bzoskie told him, “You’ll be fine. It’s a result of the needle.” Do alleged that Bzoskie asked no relevant questions and performed no tests. The court concluded that these allegations were sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Bzoskie.
Order
The court ordered that the action proceed on the excessive-force claim against Nurse Hakaki and the deliberate-indifference claim against Dr. Bzoskie. It dismissed the deliberate-indifference claim against Nurse Hakaki for failure to state a claim. The opinion did not state that this dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The court ordered that Hakaki and Bzoskie be served at Pelican Bay State Prison through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The defendants were ordered to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion addressing the cognizable claims no later than 91 days after the order was filed. Do’s opposition would be due 28 days after any such motion, and the defendants’ reply would be due 14 days after the opposition deadline. The order also stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and reminded Do of his responsibility to prosecute the case and comply with court deadlines.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.