McComb v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Background

Anthony McComb alleged that employees of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation were negligent in treating his back pain. He alleged that he had complained to the department since 2013, that Dr. Ashley Mulligan-Pfile refused at an unspecified time to examine his back and said surgery was not an option, and that he waited more than 10 years to receive an MRI. He also alleged that he later had back surgery that took seven hours instead of the usual four and that the department’s negligence caused avoidable nerve damage.

Screening and legal standards

The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-complaint screening statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A(a). Screening requires the court to identify claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federal right was violated by a person acting under state law. The court also applied the requirement that a complaint contain enough factual matter to make liability plausible, while construing filings from an unrepresented litigant liberally.

Reasons for dismissal

The court held that the complaint did not state a claim for relief because it lacked specific facts connecting each defendant to a particular wrong. The court identified missing information, including when the surgery occurred, how earlier surgery or other treatment would have prevented the alleged damage, what treatment would have helped and when it should have been offered or was denied, and what an earlier MRI or examination would have shown.

The court also stated that negligence, gross negligence, and medical malpractice are not actionable under § 1983. The court noted that the claims might be untimely because § 1983 uses the forum state’s personal-injury limitations period. It stated that California’s period is two years and that an additional two-year tolling period applies to a prisoner serving a term of less than life, giving such prisoners effectively four years to file a federal suit. The opinion did not make a final timeliness ruling.

Disposition and amendment instructions

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint on or before May 1, 2026. The amended complaint must use the caption and case number in the order, include the words “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page, use the court’s form, include every claim and defendant McComb wishes to pursue, and not incorporate earlier filings by reference. The court warned that failure to file a proper amended complaint by the deadline will result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) without further notice. The court also directed McComb to keep the court informed of any address change and comply with court orders or request an extension.

Judge

Chief United States District Judge Richard Seeborg issued the order.