Mason v. C.D.C.R Officers

Background

Joshua Mason, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint while allowing him to amend it. Mason filed a second and then a third amended complaint. The court reviewed the third amended complaint under the prisoner-screening requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Mason alleged that he had knee surgery on January 6, 2022, and was instructed to use a lower bunk and lower tier, avoid walking and putting weight on his leg, and avoid stairs. He alleged that Dr. Yeh did not ensure that he received those accommodations or proper wound care. He alleged that Dr. Lara failed to complete paperwork concerning the surgery, which led to transportation without proper knee accommodations and inadequate bunk and wound care after his return to prison.

Mason also alleged that Nurse Lalas failed to provide proper wound treatment; Nurses Cienega, Martinez, Ssempebna, and Godbe laughed at him and failed to provide proper care when his wound was bleeding and infected; and Correctional Officers Gonzalez and Salcedo ignored his requests, transported him without proper knee accommodations, and forced him to use stairs after surgery.

Screening analysis

The court explained that deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment. A medical need is serious when failing to treat it could cause significant further injury or unnecessary pain. The court concluded that, when read generously, Mason’s allegations stated an Eighth Amendment claim against Yeh, Lara, Lalas, Cienega, Martinez, Ssempebna, Godbe, Gonzalez, and Salcedo for failing to provide proper medical treatment and medical accommodations after surgery.

The court found that Mason’s allegations about being denied crutches and being required to live on an upper tier before surgery did not explain what the defendants knew about his medical needs at that time. The court also found that his allegations against unknown defendants who allegedly left him in a shower or forced him to walk upstairs were too vague to state a claim.

Ruling and next steps

Judge Rita F. Lin ordered service of the third amended complaint and its attachments on the nine defendants. The court dismissed all other claims and defendants. The order directed the defendants to respond to the cognizable claims and, by February 19, 2025, file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion concerning those claims, or notify the court that the case could not be resolved through summary judgment. The order also set deadlines for Mason’s opposition and the defendants’ reply and permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court did not decide the ultimate merits of Mason’s surviving claim. It warned that Mason must prosecute the case, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders, and it provided notice explaining how he must oppose any future summary-judgment motion.