Lemelle v. Nguyen
- Beth Freeman
- 5:25-cv-02166
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Lemelle v. Nguyen, Judge Freeman allowed Michael S. Lemelle’s medical-care claims to proceed, dismissed his other claims with prejudice, and ordered service.
Michael S. Lemelle and the prison employees named in the surviving medical-care claims: Dr. Nguyen, Scott Langevine, Nurse Thorne, Nurse Ortiz, and Sgt. Selby.
What happened
In Lemelle v. Nguyen, Michael S. Lemelle, a state prisoner representing himself, sued staff at Salinas Valley State Prison under a civil-rights law. He alleged that delays and denials of treatment for shoulder injuries caused severe pain, limited movement, sleep problems, and possible lifelong disability.
The court found that his allegations could support claims that Dr. Nguyen, Scott Langevine, Nurse Thorne, Nurse Ortiz, and Sgt. Selby were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. But it rejected separate claims based on disclosure of medical records and an alleged conspiracy, explaining that the cited privacy law does not allow prisoners to bring private lawsuits and that conspiracy alone is not a constitutional violation.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered the medical-care claims to proceed, dismissed all other claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim, directed service of the surviving claims, and ordered the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion within 91 days.
The detailed version
- Lemelle v. Nguyen · No. 5:25-cv-02166
- Beth Freeman
- July 24, 2025
Background
Michael S. Lemelle, a state inmate proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at Salinas Valley State Prison. He alleged that he tore his right rotator cuff in August 2022 and later developed problems with his left shoulder. According to the complaint, he repeatedly sought treatment, including an MRI, but experienced delays and denials from April 2023 through December 2024.
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 and examine him and delayed or denied treatment. He also alleged that Scott Langevine, identified as the prison’s Chief Medical Officer, failed to respond reasonably to his complaints about being denied medical care. Lemelle claimed that these actions caused pain, discomfort, difficulty sleeping, reduced mobility, and possible lifelong disability.
Screening and claims
Because a prisoner sued government employees, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court concluded that the allegations were sufficient to state Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Dr. Nguyen, Scott Langevine, Nurse Thorne, Nurse Ortiz, and Sgt. Selby.
Lemelle also alleged that Nurse Ortiz showed Sgt. Selby his medical records without permission and that they conspired to lie to him to make him leave a medical appointment without an examination. The court determined that these allegations did not state a separate Eighth Amendment claim. It explained that the privacy statute referred to in the opinion as “HIPPA” does not provide a private cause of action, that prisoners do not have a constitutionally protected expectation of privacy in prison treatment records when the state has a legitimate interest in accessing them, and that conspiracy by itself is not a constitutional tort under § 1983. The court therefore did not allow amendment of those claims.
Order
The court ordered that the action proceed on the Eighth Amendment medical-care claims against the five identified defendants. It dismissed all other claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court also directed service under the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases.
The order required the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was filed. Lemelle’s opposition would be due 28 days after the motion, and any reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The order also permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and instructed Lemelle to keep the court informed of address changes and comply with court deadlines.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.