Lemelle v. Nguyen

Background

Michael S. Lemelle, a state inmate proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at Salinas Valley State Prison. He alleged that he suffered a torn right rotator cuff in August 2022, experienced severe pain and limited mobility, and sought treatment including an MRI. He alleged delays and denials of treatment from April 2023 through December 2024, later developed problems with his left shoulder, and experienced pain, sleep problems, reduced mobility, and possibly lifelong disability.

Lemelle alleged that Nurse Thorne, Nurse Ortiz, and Sgt. Selby acted as gatekeepers who prevented him from seeing his primary-care provider. He alleged that Dr. Nguyen repeatedly refused to see or examine him and delayed or denied treatment. He also alleged that Scott Langevine, the prison’s Chief Medical Officer, did not reasonably respond to his complaints about denied medical care.

Screening and claims

The court conducted the preliminary screening required when a prisoner seeks relief from government officials. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federal right was violated by a person acting under state authority.

The court held that the allegations against Dr. Nguyen, Langevine, Thorne, Ortiz, and Selby were sufficient to state Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Deliberate indifference means that an official was allegedly aware of a serious medical need but did not reasonably respond to it.

Lemelle also alleged that Ortiz disclosed his medical records to Selby without permission and that Ortiz and Selby conspired to lie to him to make him leave a medical appointment without an examination. The court concluded that these allegations did not state a separate Eighth Amendment claim. It also held that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act does not provide a private right of action and that conspiracy alone is not a constitutional claim under § 1983. The court denied leave to amend these claims because it found that the deficiencies could not be corrected by amendment.

Disposition and next steps

The court ordered that the action proceed on the Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against Dr. Nguyen, Scott Langevine, Nurse Thorne, Nurse Ortiz, and Sgt. Selby. It dismissed all other claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

The clerk was directed to arrange service on the listed defendants through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service process, with United States Marshal service for any defendant who did not waive service. Within 91 days after the order was filed, the defendants must file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion addressing the claims that survived screening. The order also set deadlines for Lemelle’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, and stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.