Stephen Paule Kennedy v. Michael Yeh, et al.

Background

Stephen Paule Kennedy filed a first amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against people acting under state authority for violations of federal rights. He alleged that two inmates broke his finger at Salinas Valley State Prison on December 10, 2020, and that medical staff were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs on that day and afterward, violating the Eighth Amendment.

Screening and Claims

Because Kennedy sought relief as a prisoner from governmental personnel, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court said it must identify claims that are legally supportable and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule that a pro se filing—that is, a filing by a person without a lawyer—must be read generously.

The court found that, when read generously, Kennedy stated Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against six medical staff members: A. Camacho, a physical therapist; Carl Bourne, a doctor; Danilo Paraguya, a registered nurse; O.T. Kim, a doctor; Michael Yeh, a doctor; and Allen Wong, a doctor.

The court dismissed all other claims and defendants. This included Kennedy’s allegations against unnamed or partially named defendants, such as Anthony, identified as an X-ray technician, and his conclusory allegations against California Correctional Health Services and CTC Supervisors. The court explained that liability under Section 1983 requires personal participation or other involvement in the alleged constitutional violation; a supervisory relationship alone is not enough.

Orders

The court ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and directed the United States Marshal to serve the operative complaint and attachments on Camacho, Bourne, Paraguya, Kim, Yeh, and Wong without requiring Kennedy to pay service fees. Service was to proceed through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases.

The six defendants were ordered to file answers under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By April 20, 2026, they were also required, if appropriate, to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the claims found cognizable. A dispositive motion is a motion seeking a ruling that could resolve a claim or the case. The court stated that a failure-to-exhaust defense must be raised through a summary-judgment motion. Kennedy’s opposition would be due 45 days after the motion, and the defendants’ reply would be due 15 days after the opposition.

The court permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and stated that no hearing would be held on a motion unless the court later ordered one. The order also gave Kennedy instructions concerning service of his filings, address changes, deadlines, and the requirements for opposing summary judgment.