Shove v. State of California

Background

The plaintiff, who was incarcerated at California Health Care Facility, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center. He proceeded without a lawyer. He alleged that, in late August 2022, he was hospitalized for heart surgery and returned to San Quentin after two days with stents in his heart. According to the complaint, doctors ordered him not to lift anything and to remain in complete bed rest for 10 to 14 days.

The complaint stated that he was designated as an intermittent wheelchair user with a ground-floor, no-stairs restriction. On August 30, 2022, unnamed San Quentin staff ordered him to go upstairs, pack his property, and move it to the front of his cell. The complaint alleged that an unnamed correctional security officer told him to complete the task within 30 minutes and threatened that his property and legal work would be discarded and that he would receive no state clothing, supplies, or bedding. Shove said he complied because he feared a disciplinary violation, then fell and was taken to the prison hospital after heart problems began. He alleged that four heart attacks followed, along with serious deterioration and other complications.

Screening Standard

Because the plaintiff sought relief from governmental defendants, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court could dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. It also applied the rule requiring a complaint to provide a short and plain statement giving defendants fair notice of the claims and their grounds.

For a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a constitutional or federal right and a violation by a person acting under state authority. The court explained that deliberate indifference to serious medical or safety risks requires an official to know of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregard that risk through a purposeful act or failure to act, causing harm.

Court’s Analysis

The court liberally construed the complaint and concluded that the allegations could rise to the level of a legally recognizable deliberate-indifference claim. But the complaint did not identify the individual defendants whose acts or omissions allegedly caused the constitutional violation. Naming the State of California and San Quentin alone was not sufficient.

The court identified the unnamed correctional security officer and unnamed sergeant as potentially appropriate defendants because the complaint alleged that they ignored the medical instructions not to lift anything and to remain in bed. The court allowed the plaintiff an opportunity to identify those defendants through discovery or by providing names and specific identifying characteristics, unless he could not do so.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. The amended complaint had to clearly state each claim, identify each defendant and the specific action or inaction attributed to that defendant, identify the resulting injury, and explain whether the plaintiff had exhausted administrative remedies or whether those remedies were unavailable. It also could not rely on conclusory allegations, improper supervisory liability, or unnamed defendants without specific identifying facts and allegations connecting each defendant to the alleged deprivation.

The court gave the plaintiff 28 days to file an amended complaint using the required civil-rights form. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint and had to include all claims the plaintiff wished to pursue. The court stated that failure to file an amended complaint or correct the identified deficiencies would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. The court separately stated that the plaintiff’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee would be granted in another written order.