Campos v. Lason Medical Pill Line Nurse
- Beth Freeman
- 5:25-cv-03403
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
Judge Freeman dismissed Campos v. Lason Medical Pill Line Nurse, allowing amendment and preserving a possible Eighth Amendment claim against the unnamed nurse.
Tarcicio Noe Campos may amend his complaint within 28 days. The claim against the CDCR Gov’t Claim Office ‘Insurers’ was dismissed with prejudice; the potential claim against the unnamed pill-line nurse and the possible claim against the CTF medical department were left subject to amendment.
What happened
In Campos v. Lason Medical Pill Line Nurse, a state prisoner alleged that a pill-line nurse forced him to take medication he did not recognize, causing severe side effects, hospitalization, and near death. He sued under a federal civil-rights law against the nurse, a state claims office or insurers, and the prison medical department.
The court found that the allegations could support a claim that the nurse knowingly ignored a serious medical risk by forcing him to take the wrong medication. But the complaint did not identify the nurse by name. The court also found no valid claim against the state claims office and said a claim against the medical department would require allegations of an unconstitutional policy or custom.
Judge Freeman dismissed the claims against the state claims office with prejudice and dismissed the rest of the complaint with leave to amend. The plaintiff was given 28 days to file an amended complaint identifying the nurse and addressing the other deficiencies.
The detailed version
- Campos v. Lason Medical Pill Line Nurse · No. 5:25-cv-03403
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 18, 2025
Background
Tarcicio Noe Campos, a state inmate confined at the Correctional Training Facility, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued a pill-line nurse, the “CDCR Gov’t Claim Office ‘Insurers,’” and the CTF Medical Department. The court had granted him permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Campos alleged that on January 30, 2024, a pill nurse forced him to take medication that he did not recognize and had tried to refuse. He alleged that he later suffered side effects, went “man down,” was hospitalized, and almost lost his life. He described the nurse’s conduct as medical negligence and malpractice and sought damages and injunctive relief.
Screening standard
Because a prisoner sued governmental entities or employees, the court was required to conduct an initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court had to identify claims that were legally cognizable and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that it must read complaints filed without a lawyer liberally.
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right protected by the Constitution or federal law and that the violation was committed by someone acting under state authority.
Claim against the pill-line nurse
The court explained that medical negligence or malpractice alone does not establish an Eighth Amendment violation. But, reading Campos’s allegations liberally, the court found that he stated a possible Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. In particular, the allegations were sufficient at the screening stage to claim that the nurse forced him to take the wrong medication even after he said he did not recognize it.
The case could not proceed solely against an unnamed “Jane Doe” defendant. The court directed Campos to use a Form 22 or request information under the California Public Records Act to determine the nurse’s identity so he could identify her by name in an amended complaint.
Claim against the state claims office or insurers
The court said the defendant identified as the “CDCR Gov’t Claim Office ‘Insurers’” likely referred to the California Department of General Services, which had denied Campos’s tort claim about the incident. The court held that the denial did not violate the Eighth Amendment because the alleged medical incident had already occurred and the denial did not expose Campos to a substantial risk of serious harm.
The court dismissed this defendant with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The order described this deficiency as one that could not be corrected by amendment.
Claim against the CTF medical department
The court held that a medical department cannot be liable under § 1983 merely because it supervised or employed the person who allegedly committed the violation. To pursue a claim against the CTF Medical Department, Campos would have to state a municipality claim, sometimes called a Monell claim. That requires allegations that a government entity had a policy or custom showing deliberate indifference to constitutional rights and that the policy or custom caused the constitutional violation.
The court granted Campos leave to amend to try to state such a claim.
Disposition
The court ordered that the claim against the “CDCR Gov’t Claim Office ‘Insurers’” was dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk was directed to terminate that defendant and the other defendants listed on the docket except “Medical Pill Line Nurse” and “CTF Soledad Medical Department.”
In all other respects, the complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Campos was given 28 days from the filing of the order to file an amended complaint on the court’s form. The amended complaint had to use the caption and case number in the order, state “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page, and answer all questions on the form. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint; claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the case. Failure to file an amended complaint or notice within the stated period would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim without further notice.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.