Campos v. Lason Medical Pill Line Nurse

Background

Tarcicio Noe Campos, identified as a state inmate confined at the Correctional Training Facility, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named a nurse, the “CDCR Gov’t Claim Office ‘Insurers,’” and the Correctional Training Facility Medical Department as defendants. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint with leave to amend, and Campos then filed an amended complaint.

Campos alleged that on January 30, 2024, Nurse Rhoda Binuluan gave him medication he did not recognize. He alleged that he told Binuluan this but took the medication at her direct order. He further alleged that he became so ill from side effects that he was taken to an outside hospital, where staff told him he almost lost his life. He sought damages.

Screening and claim

Because a prisoner sued governmental defendants, the court conducted preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.

The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires allegations that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by a person acting under state authority. Construing Campos’s allegations liberally, the court found them sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs based on allegedly forcing him to take the wrong medication after he said he did not recognize it.

Orders

The conclusion orders that Defendant Rhoda Binuluan be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process for prisoner civil-rights cases. It directs the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to report on service waivers and directs the clerk and United States Marshals Service to arrange service for any defendant who does not waive service.

The order directs defendants, within 91 days after the order was filed, to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion addressing the claims found cognizable. It sets deadlines for Campos’s opposition and defendants’ reply, permits discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and warns Campos that failing to oppose a summary-judgment motion could result in judgment against him without a trial. It also requires Campos to keep the court informed of address changes and comply with court orders.

Disposition ambiguity

The opinion states near the beginning that “the amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice.” However, the same opinion finds a claim against Binuluan sufficient to proceed and orders that she be served, followed by further motion practice and discovery. The provided text does not explain or resolve this apparent conflict, so the precise disposition of the amended complaint is unclear.