Johnson v. Macomber

Background

Michael Lee Johnson, identified as a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against four defendants: Jeff Macomber, identified as Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; Edward Borla, identified as Warden of the Correctional Training Facility; Dr. Ashley Mulligan; and Chi Nguyen, identified as a dentist. Johnson alleged problems involving a broken hernia mesh implant and nerve damage or pain following dental treatment.

The court had screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary review of a prisoner’s claims against governmental entities or officials. On October 3, 2025, the court dismissed deficient claims with leave to amend. It also gave Johnson the alternative of proceeding on the claim the court found cognizable while striking the non-cognizable claims. Johnson filed notice choosing that alternative.

Claim Proceeding

The court found cognizable a claim that Dr. Mulligan was deliberately indifferent to Johnson’s serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Johnson alleged that he had an operation in 2008 involving repair of an umbilical hernia with mesh, and that in 2016 he repeatedly asked Dr. Mulligan for a specialist referral to address a broken mesh implant that he said caused pain, infection, acid reflux, stomach discomfort, and possible internal-organ damage.

Johnson also alleged that Dr. Mulligan ordered an MRI without dye to avoid showing the damage and recommended that he see a mental-health professional for anxiety instead of referring him to a specialist. He further alleged that dental treatment in 2022 caused nerve damage or pain in his jaw and that a 2024 MRI appointment did not provide the imaging he believed was needed. The court stated that, liberally construed, these allegations supported a deliberate-indifference claim against Dr. Mulligan for failing to provide adequate MRIs for the mesh-related and jaw-related complaints.

Order

The court ordered that the case proceed only on the deliberate-indifference claim against Dr. Mulligan. It ordered that all other claims and defendants be stricken from the complaint and directed the clerk to terminate the other defendants from the action.

The court ordered service on Dr. Mulligan through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program. It set procedures for a service waiver and, if necessary, service by the United States Marshals Service.

The court directed the defendants, no later than 91 days after the order was filed, to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the cognizable claim. It set deadlines for Johnson’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and gave instructions about communications, extensions, prosecution of the case, and the consequences of failing to oppose a summary-judgment motion. The order screened and narrowed the case; it did not decide the ultimate merits of the remaining claim.