Mason v. C.D.C.R Officers

Background

Joshua Mason brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that medical and security staff at Salinas Valley State Prison were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Mason alleged that he underwent left-knee surgery on January 6, 2022, and that the surgeon instructed him to use a lower bunk and lower-tier housing and not to walk, put weight on his leg, or use stairs. He alleged that staff failed to provide appropriate transportation, housing, wound care, and pain medication, causing additional pain, injury, and infection.

The operative pleading was Mason’s third amended complaint. Defendants filed two motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

First Motion to Dismiss: Docket No. 44

The motion filed by Drs. Yeh and Lara, and by Martinez, Ssempebwa, Godbe, and Cienega, was granted in part and denied in part.

The court granted the motion as to Drs. Yeh and Lara and dismissed the claims against them with leave to amend. The court held that Mason’s complaint did not allege specific facts showing that Yeh and Lara knew about his post-surgery condition or the surgeon’s instructions. The court explained that allegations in Mason’s opposition brief could not substitute for allegations in the complaint when deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Mason could attempt to correct the deficiencies by including those facts in an amended complaint.

The court denied the motion as to Martinez, Ssempebwa, Godbe, and Cienega. Mason alleged that these medical personnel responded to an emergency involving an infected, continuously bleeding wound, laughed at him, denied wound care, and took away his pain medication. The court found those allegations sufficient to state a claim for relief, although Mason would have to repeat them in any amended complaint for those defendants to remain in the case.

Second Motion to Dismiss: Docket No. 61

The court denied the motion filed by correctional officers Acevedo and Gonzalez. Mason alleged that they transported him from the hospital in a van without an appropriate lift and failed to follow the surgeon’s instructions that he not walk or climb stairs. The court found that Mason’s allegation that the officers told other officers about the post-surgery instructions supported a plausible inference that Acevedo and Gonzalez knew of those instructions when they picked him up. The court also considered that they saw Mason using crutches and could have sought safer transportation.

Mason was required to repeat his allegations against Acevedo and Gonzalez in any amended complaint. The court stated that he could also add more specific facts about the transportation and how his injury occurred.

Other Rulings and Deadline

The court granted Mason’s motion to extend the deadline for filing his opposition to the defendants’ motions, Docket No. 63, and deemed the opposition timely filed.

Any amended complaint had to be filed by November 3, 2025, on the court’s form and labeled “FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT.” It had to include all claims and defendants Mason wished to pursue because an amended complaint replaces the earlier complaints. If Mason did not file a proper amended complaint by that date, the claims against Yeh and Lara would remain dismissed with prejudice, and the case would proceed against the remaining defendants. The opinion also stated that Mason would need to repeat his allegations against Martinez, Ssempebwa, Godbe, Cienega, Acevedo, Gonzalez, and Kenneth Lalas for those defendants to remain in the case.