Walker v. Adams

Background

Jeffery Walker, who was proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers and medical staff at the County Jail in San Bruno. The opinion states that Walker was a civil detainee held at the San Francisco County Jail while awaiting a new probable-cause hearing under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act. He alleged that he was transferred to the San Bruno jail, which he said did not house civil detainees, in retaliation for filing complaints and grievances.

The court had previously screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening is the court’s early review of a prisoner or detainee’s complaint to identify claims that may proceed and claims that are frivolous, legally insufficient, or barred by immunity. The earlier screening order identified some claims as legally sufficient and allowed Walker either to amend the deficient claims or ask to remove them.

Court’s action

Walker asked to strike the deficient claims and proceed with the claims identified as legally sufficient. Although the request was late, the court granted it. The court ordered that the deficient claims be stricken and that the action proceed solely on:

1. A due-process claim against Captain Quantico and Lieutenant Rold for allegedly subjecting Walker to punitive conditions of confinement at the San Bruno jail; and 2. A deficient-medical-care claim against Dr. Main, Dr. Asa, Deputy Baker, and medical defendants identified as Jane Does.

The opinion states that the medical-care claims arise under the Fourteenth Amendment because Walker was a civil detainee rather than a prisoner. The clerk was ordered to terminate all other defendants because the other claims had been stricken. The order did not decide whether the surviving claims would ultimately succeed.

Service and case deadlines

The clerk was directed to send the named defendants a notice of the lawsuit, requests to waive formal service, the complaint and attachments, and the order. The case may also proceed against the Jane Doe defendants if Walker identifies them through discovery.

The order directed the defendants, no later than 91 days after the order was filed, to file a motion for summary judgment or notify the court if they believed the case could not be resolved through summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the required evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute over a material fact. Walker’s opposition would be due 28 days after any motion, and the defendants’ reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. No hearing would be held unless the court later ordered one.

Walker was directed to try to identify the Jane Doe defendants during discovery and seek to substitute their proper names within 56 days after the order was filed. The order states that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the claims against those defendants for failure to state a claim for relief. It also warned that failing to oppose a summary-judgment motion could be treated as consent to judgment without a trial.