Elghembri v. Long
- William Orrick
- 3:24-cv-03071
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Elghembri v. Long, Judge William H. Orrick found a plausible Eighth Amendment claim and ordered service, allowing the case to proceed.
Ahmed Mohammad Elghembri’s Eighth Amendment claim against San Quentin State Prison nurse Douglas Long was allowed to proceed past screening; Long was ordered to respond.
What happened
In Elghembri v. Long, Ahmed Mohammad Elghembri alleged that nurse Douglas Long failed to treat eye and facial injuries after Elghembri fell from his bunk at San Quentin State Prison. Elghembri said Long examined the bleeding wound, told him to wash his face and eye, and provided no treatment.
After screening the complaint, the court found that it stated a claim under the Eighth Amendment and ordered the complaint served on Long. The court directed Long to answer and file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion by October 6, 2025. The order did not decide whether Long was ultimately liable.
Judge William H. Orrick issued the amended service order on June 6, 2025. The order also set deadlines for responding to motions and explained procedures for service, discovery, and communications with the court.
The detailed version
- Elghembri v. Long · No. 3:24-cv-03071
- William Orrick
- June 6, 2025
Background
Ahmed Mohammad Elghembri filed a first amended civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that he fell from his bunk at San Quentin State Prison on August 23, 2023, injuring his eye and face. According to the complaint, nurse Douglas Long looked at the bleeding wound, told Elghembri to return to his cell and wash his face and eye, and declined to provide treatment. Elghembri later saw a doctor at a previously arranged appointment.
Screening decision
The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires screening of prisoner complaints against governmental entities or officials. At this stage, the court must identify claims that are legally sufficient and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, insufficiently pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court stated that, when the allegations are read liberally, Elghembri had stated an Eighth Amendment claim against Long. The opinion text provided does not include the remainder of the court’s analysis after that conclusion.
Orders
The court ordered service of the operative complaint and its attachments on Long and directed him to respond to the cognizable claim. Service was to proceed through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program, with United States Marshal Service procedures for any defendant who did not waive service.
Long was ordered to file an answer and, by October 6, 2025, a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the cognizable claim. The order stated that any exhaustion challenge under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) had to be presented through a summary-judgment motion. It also set deadlines for Elghembri’s opposition and Long’s reply, allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and stated that no motion hearing would occur unless the court later ordered one.
Effect of the order
This was a screening and case-management order, not a final decision on whether Long violated the Eighth Amendment. The court found the claim sufficient to proceed past screening and directed the next litigation steps. Judge William H. Orrick signed the order on June 6, 2025.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.