Patterson v. Balbona

Background

Ronald Patterson, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility, filed a pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The amended complaint named Correctional Training Facility doctor Mitzi Balbona and nurse Guillermo Cerda. The court reviewed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary screening of a prisoner’s lawsuit seeking relief from a governmental entity or its officer or employee.

Allegations

Patterson alleged that on September 4, 2023, he heard something crunch in his right leg while playing basketball and immediately felt extreme pain. He believed his leg was broken and said he needed an X-ray or magnetic resonance imaging and immediate treatment at an outside hospital. He alleged that Cerda cleaned his open wounds but responded, “You’re a grown man, you’ll be okay,” when Patterson requested outside treatment. Patterson further alleged that Balbona prescribed Tylenol, crutches, and an ice pack and ordered an X-ray. The X-ray was not provided until September 11, 2023. After reviewing it, an X-ray technician instructed the facility’s treatment area to send Patterson to an outside hospital, where Patterson learned that his leg was broken.

Screening ruling

The court explained that screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. Applying a liberal reading to Patterson’s allegations, the court held that his allegations stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. In this context, the claim was based on the allegation that Patterson told the defendants he had a broken leg requiring imaging or outside treatment, but they provided only crutches and Tylenol and delayed the X-ray for a week.

Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered that Mitzi Balbona and Guillermo Cerda be served. Service is to proceed through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program, with United States Marshals Service forms and service to follow for any defendant who does not waive service. The order also set procedures for discovery, dispositive motions, responses, and communications with the court. It did not resolve the ultimate merits of Patterson’s claim.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it was a prisoner-complaint screening and service order. The court found that the allegations were sufficient to proceed but did not decide whether Patterson will win on the Eighth Amendment claim.