Kennedy v. Chief Medical Officer

Background

Stephen Paule Kennedy alleged that two inmates broke his finger at Salinas Valley State Prison on December 10, 2020, and that medical staff did not take his pain and injury seriously. He brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority. The court reviewed the complaint under the required preliminary screening process for complaints against a governmental entity.

Claims Against Medical Personnel

Kennedy alleged that Son and Michael Yeh, identified as a doctor or physician’s assistant and a physician’s assistant, respectively, knew that his finger hurt and might be broken. He also alleged that they said, “we are not doing a[n] M.R.I.” The court found these allegations insufficient because Kennedy did not specify what they failed to do, did not show whether they had authority to order an MRI, and did not show whether they had the medical qualifications to determine that an MRI was required. The opinion also stated that it was unclear whether they were following directions from someone with authority.

Kennedy alleged that Dr. M.Z. Lameer failed to diagnose and treat the fracture and left him untreated. The court explained that deliberate indifference requires knowing that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarding that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to reduce it. The court found that Lameer issued orders for physical therapy and an MRI, showing that he took some reasonable action and attempted to diagnose the injury. Based on the allegations in the complaint, the court held that this was not deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment.

Kennedy also named other defendants without alleging specific facts against them. The court stated that claims could not proceed without a sufficient factual showing.

Claims Against Grievance Reviewers

The court dismissed Kennedy’s allegations against grievance reviewers, including the Chief Medical Officer, without leave to amend. It held that merely reviewing an inmate’s administrative grievance does not necessarily show awareness of the alleged violation or participation in it, and that ruling against a prisoner on an administrative complaint does not itself cause or contribute to the underlying violation.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint by June 2, 2025. The amended complaint must use the required court form, include the case caption and civil case number, be labeled “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, and include all claims and defendants Kennedy wishes to pursue. The court warned that failing to file a proper amended complaint by that date may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.

The court denied Kennedy’s motion for appointment of counsel. It stated that he could file another motion for counsel with his amended complaint, which the court would then consider based on the allegations presented.