Kemp v. Bentacourt

Background

Eric S. Kemp, a prisoner at Correctional Training Facility, filed a complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for violations of federal rights by someone acting under state law. The court stated that the case had been reopened and that Kemp’s First Amended Complaint was before it for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Kemp alleged that two teeth, numbers 4 and 13, had been determined by prison dental professionals to require extraction. He alleged that he feared needles, that local numbing was ineffective for him, and that he therefore required extraction at an outside facility under anesthesia. He had refused extraction at the prison using local numbing and alleged that he continued to suffer pain from the teeth’s decay. He sought injunctive relief requiring extraction in the manner he alleged would not cause excessive and unnecessary pain, as well as damages.

Screening analysis

Under the prisoner-screening statute, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a disagreement about medical treatment does not by itself establish a § 1983 claim, but deliberate indifference to unnecessary pain can do so.

The court concluded that, liberally construing Kemp’s allegations, he had stated an Eighth Amendment claim. The opinion therefore allowed the claim to proceed to service. It did not enter a final merits judgment on the claim.

Order and next steps

The court ordered service on Carmen Bentacourt through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program. The Clerk was directed to send the operative complaint, the order, an electronic-service waiver form, and a summons to the department, and to send Kemp a copy of the order.

The order established procedures for waiver or formal service, answers, and dispositive motions. It required defendants to file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion no later than 60 days after the answer deadline, unless they informed the court that the case could not be resolved that way. Kemp’s opposition would be due 28 days after the motion, and any reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The order also permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and allowed defendants to depose confined witnesses.

The order advised Kemp that he was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of any address change, and complying with court orders. It also stated that, upon a showing of good cause, requests for reasonable extensions of time would be granted if filed by the deadline being extended. The court did not dismiss the complaint or enter judgment. The opinion does not identify the judge by name.