Fordyce v. Smith

Background

The opinion says that the plaintiff filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while proceeding without a lawyer. A magistrate judge previously dismissed the original complaint but allowed an amended complaint. The court reviewed the amended complaint under the statute requiring screening of prisoner cases against government entities or government officers and employees.

The amended complaint alleges that Pelican Bay State Prison dentist J. Herzog knew since the beginning of June 2024 that the plaintiff needed a tooth extraction but failed to order one. The plaintiff alleges an allergy to lidocaine, which requires the extraction to occur at a hospital, and alleges that the tooth causes excruciating pain. The amended complaint also names Warden S. Smith, CEO K. Minor, and CSE J. Dark, but makes no allegations against them. The plaintiff seeks damages and an injunction.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires allegations that a constitutional or federal statutory right was violated by someone acting under state authority. A defendant can be liable only when the defendant’s own actions, participation, or legally required inaction caused the alleged violation.

The court dismissed Smith, Minor, and Dark because the amended complaint named them as supervisors but alleged no personal conduct by them. The court relied on the rule that § 1983 does not impose liability solely because someone supervises another person who allegedly violated a plaintiff’s rights.

The court liberally construed the allegations against Herzog and held that they state an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. This finding allowed the claim to proceed; the order did not decide whether the plaintiff will ultimately prove the claim.

Disposition and next steps

The court ordered:

- Defendants Smith, Minor, and Dark are dismissed. - Herzog must be served electronically through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. If Herzog does not waive service, the United States Marshals Service will be provided materials for service. - Any defense summary-judgment motion or other dispositive motion must be filed no later than 56 days after service. The plaintiff’s opposition is due 28 days after the motion, and any reply is due 14 days after the opposition. - Discovery may proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without another court order under Rule 30(a)(2). - The plaintiff must serve court communications on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and prosecute the case. The order warns that failing to do so may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.

The opinion contains an identification inconsistency: the caption names the plaintiff as Joshua Fordyce, while the body refers to the plaintiff as Brittany Fordyce and uses both feminine and masculine references. This summary does not resolve that inconsistency.