Lucero v. Arce

Background

Charles Patrick Lucero, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court previously screened his 11-page complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a required preliminary review of a prisoner’s complaint. The court found that, when read broadly, the complaint stated claims that could be reviewed by a court against Dr. Mendez. It dismissed all other claims because they were not capable of judicial determination at that stage.

The court gave Lucero permission to amend some dismissed claims, but dismissed his claims against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation without leave to amend. The deadline to amend was extended twice, ultimately to October 3, 2025. The court had also denied Lucero’s request for appointment of an attorney.

Failure to Amend

Lucero did not file an amended complaint by the deadline. He sent the court a letter stating that he had severe depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and schizophrenia; that a cellmate had pressured him to file the lawsuit and typed the complaint; and that he had signed it after telling the cellmate his story.

The court found that Lucero did not explain why his mental-health conditions prevented him from filing an amended complaint or obtaining needed assistance. It also found that he had not shown changed circumstances that justified giving him more time.

Ruling

The court dismissed with prejudice all claims other than Lucero’s claims against Dr. Mendez for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and for intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law. “With prejudice” means those dismissed claims may not be brought again in this case. The order did not decide whether Lucero will ultimately prevail on the remaining claims.

Service and Case Schedule

The court ordered that Dr. Mendez, identified as a psychologist, be served at Salinas Valley State Prison through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service process for prisoner civil-rights cases. The order set procedures for reporting whether service would be waived and for arranging service through the United States Marshals Service if necessary.

The court ordered the defendant to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion by January 5, 2026, or to notify the court if summary judgment could not resolve the case. Lucero’s opposition, if any, was due February 5, 2026, and the defendant’s reply was due February 19, 2026. The court stated that no hearing would be held unless it later ordered one.

The order also permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, required Lucero to serve defendants with copies of his court communications, and reminded him that he must prosecute the case, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders.