Avalos v. Dr. Ashby

Background

Jose Luis Avalos filed a first amended civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Dr. J. Ashby, a physician at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, sent him to Dr. Hatch, a physician at San Joaquin General Hospital in French Camp, California, for arthroscopic arm surgery performed on April 26, 2023. Avalos alleged that neither doctor gave him instructions for cleaning and caring for his arm after surgery. He alleged that his arm became infected and required additional surgery.

Avalos’s original complaint had been dismissed with permission to amend because he had not identified the doctors or provided other details about his medical treatment.

Screening Ruling

The court reviewed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires screening of a prisoner’s complaint against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. Applying the rule that allegations from an unrepresented litigant are read generously, the court found that Avalos stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Ashby and Hatch based on the alleged lack of post-surgical care instructions.

The court said Avalos’s separate allegation that Hatch and medical students did “something wrong” during surgery was too speculative and unspecific to support a claim. The court also stated that no other claims were described and dismissed any other claims Avalos intended to bring.

Orders Regarding the Case

The court ordered service of the operative complaint and its attachments on Ashby and Hatch. The United States Marshal was directed to serve Hatch without requiring advance payment of fees. Service on Ashby was directed through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program, with Marshal service to follow if service was not waived or could not be completed through that program.

The court directed the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the claim found to be legally sufficient by November 3, 2025. If the defendants seek dismissal for failure to complete available prison grievance procedures, the court directed them to raise that issue in a summary-judgment motion. Avalos’s opposition is due 45 days after the defendants’ motion, and any reply is due 15 days after the opposition. Discovery may proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No hearing will be held unless the court later orders one.

This order screened the complaint and allowed one claim to proceed; it did not decide whether Ashby or Hatch violated Avalos’s rights or whether either doctor is liable.