Smith v. Fu
- Beth Freeman
- 5:19-cv-02119-BLF
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Smith v. Fu, Judge Freeman allowed an Eighth Amendment medical-care claim to proceed, removed the First Amendment claim, and ordered defendants to respond.
Jason Smith and the named Correctional Training Facility personnel who were defendants in the action.
What happened
In Smith v. Fu, Jason Smith, a state prisoner, filed a self-represented civil-rights lawsuit against personnel at the Correctional Training Facility. He alleged that medical staff denied or reduced treatment for his shoulder pain and methadone use after he refused to sign a waiver and consent document.
The court found that Smith’s allegations were enough to proceed with a claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, meaning they knowingly disregarded a serious medical problem. Smith chose not to pursue his proposed First Amendment claim, so that claim was removed from the complaint.
Judge Freeman ordered service-related steps and required defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another motion resolving the case within 91 days. The order also set deadlines for Smith’s response and allowed discovery; it did not decide whether Smith ultimately wins the medical-care claim.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Fu · No. 5:19-cv-02119-BLF
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 10, 2019
Background
Jason Smith, a state prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, filed a self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against personnel at that facility. The court had previously reviewed the complaint and found a cognizable claim under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The court had also allowed Smith to try to allege a First Amendment claim.
Smith alleged that he had osteoarthritis in his right shoulder, chronic pain, and a methadone prescription. According to the allegations described in the order, he was transported to Twin City Medical Community for an orthopedic consultation. He said he was required to sign a liability waiver and consent to videotaping surgery before receiving treatment, and that Dr. Kowall denied him treatment after he refused to sign. Smith further alleged that D. Fu Law told him his methadone was being discontinued because he had refused the document, that the prescription was reduced, and that he later experienced withdrawal symptoms. He also made allegations concerning treatment by Ross, the handling of his emergency appeal by M. Votaw, and delayed physical therapy by S. Posson.
Screening and Claims
Because Smith sought relief from government personnel while incarcerated, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening is an initial review used to identify claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or barred because they seek money from an immune defendant. The court stated that self-represented pleadings must be read liberally.
The court concluded that, when read liberally, Smith’s allegations were sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of that claim. Smith notified the court that he wanted to proceed only on the Eighth Amendment claim. The court therefore ordered that the case proceed solely on that claim and that the First Amendment claim be stricken from the complaint.
Order
The court directed the clerk to send the defendants notice of the lawsuit, requests to waive service, copies of the complaint and attachments, and a copy of the order. The court cautioned defendants about the costs and timing associated with waiving formal service.
No later than 91 days after the order was filed, defendants were directed to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion addressing the cognizable claim. A dispositive motion is a motion seeking to resolve the claim or case without a trial. The order set a 28-day deadline for Smith to oppose such a motion and a 14-day deadline for defendants to reply. It also stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, required Smith to serve his court communications on defendants or their counsel, and reminded him that he was responsible for prosecuting the case and meeting deadlines.
This was a screening and case-management order, not a final decision on whether the defendants were liable for violating the Eighth Amendment.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.