Scalant v. Santa Cruz County Jail Sheriffs Administration

Background

Alberto Scalant, a detainee at Santa Cruz County Jail, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. After the court dismissed his amended complaint with permission to amend, Scalant filed a second amended complaint. The court reviewed that complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires screening of a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief from a governmental entity or its employees.

Scalant alleged that he received inadequate medical care after taking Zyprexa. He alleged swelling, breathing problems, a 60-pound weight gain, and skin that retained an imprint when pressed. He said he reported these problems to Dr. S. Fratianni, who allegedly failed to properly diagnose him, review his medications, consult other doctors, or refer him to an outside doctor. Scalant further alleged that he continued to suffer from these problems and that his weakened immune system led to a shingles outbreak.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a pretrial detainee’s inadequate-medical-care claim arises under the Fourteenth Amendment. The claim uses an objective deliberate-indifference standard. In general, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant intentionally made a decision about the conditions of confinement, those conditions created a substantial risk of serious harm, the defendant failed to take reasonable available measures despite the obvious risk, and that failure caused injury. The conduct must be objectively unreasonable; lack of due care alone is not enough.

The court said Scalant’s earlier complaints mainly alleged that he was not told about every possible side effect of Zyprexa and did not identify specific actions by particular defendants. The court had previously found those allegations insufficient, including because a difference of medical opinion did not state a federal claim.

The court concluded that the second amended complaint corrected enough of these problems as to Dr. Fratianni. When read liberally, the allegations stated a Fourteenth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference based on failure to provide adequate medical care. The court found the allegations against the other doctors and the private company that contracted to provide medical care too general and insufficiently specific. Because Scalant had several opportunities to amend, the court determined that further amendment would be futile.

Ruling and next steps

Judge Rita F. Lin ordered that all claims and defendants be dismissed without leave to amend except for the Fourteenth Amendment medical-care claim against Dr. Fratianni. The court ordered service of the second amended complaint and the order on Dr. Fratianni at Santa Cruz County Jail, without requiring prepayment of fees.

The court directed Dr. Fratianni to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion concerning the cognizable claim by May 7, 2025. If he sought dismissal based on failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, the court directed him to raise that issue in a summary-judgment motion. Scalant’s opposition would be due 45 days after the motion was filed, and any reply would be due 15 days after the opposition. The court also stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and gave Scalant instructions about serving court communications, maintaining his address, meeting deadlines, and responding to any summary-judgment motion.