Scalant v. Fratianni

Background

Alberto Erick Scalant, a detainee at Santa Cruz County Jail, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously reviewed his original complaint and found a legally sufficient claim against Dr. Salvatore Fratianni for denying adequate medical care. The court dismissed supervisors Cleveland and Freitas with permission to amend, giving Scalant until July 7, 2025, to allege facts showing that they participated in or directed the alleged constitutional violations. Scalant did not file an amended complaint by that deadline.

Rulings

The court stated that, when read broadly, Scalant’s complaint alleged a denial-of-medical-care claim against Dr. Fratianni. Cleveland and Freitas were dismissed from the action. The order did not decide whether Scalant would ultimately win the claim against Dr. Fratianni.

The clerk was ordered to issue a summons, and the United States Marshal was ordered to serve Dr. Fratianni at Santa Cruz County Main Jail without requiring advance payment of fees. Dr. Fratianni was ordered, by December 1, 2025, to file a response, a motion for summary judgment, or another motion seeking to dispose of the claim. If he argued that Scalant failed to complete required administrative grievance procedures, that argument had to be made through a summary-judgment motion.

Case Schedule and Instructions

Scalant’s opposition to any dispositive motion was due 45 days after the motion was filed, and Dr. Fratianni’s reply was due 15 days after the opposition. The motion would be considered submitted when the reply was due, unless the court later ordered a hearing. The parties could conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without first obtaining another court order.

The court instructed Scalant to serve copies of his communications with the court on Dr. Fratianni or his counsel, keep the court informed of any address change, comply with court orders, and request relevant jail records directly from jail officials rather than from the court. The order warned that failing to prosecute the case could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). It also required Dr. Fratianni to provide Scalant with a notice explaining how to oppose a summary-judgment motion when filing such a motion.

Disposition

This was an order screening the complaint, dismissing two defendants, arranging service, and setting the next steps for the remaining claim. It was not a final decision on the merits of the medical-care claim.