Furnace v. Emerson

Background

Edward T. Furnace, a California state prisoner, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion states that he was granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees in a separate order. He sued Pelican Bay State Prison officials C. Emerson, identified as the supervisory dentist, and B. Woods, identified as the chief executive officer.

Furnace alleged that he had been diagnosed with a broken filling approximately six months earlier, that the defendants had not repaired it, and that the condition was very painful.

Screening and Claim

Because Furnace sought relief from governmental officials, the court conducted the preliminary prisoner-complaint screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by someone acting under state law.

Construing the complaint liberally, the court found that Furnace stated a cognizable claim that Emerson and Woods violated his constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by being deliberately indifferent to a serious medical or dental need. The order determined only that the claim could proceed past preliminary screening; it did not decide the ultimate merits of the claim.

Order

The court ordered the clerk to issue summonses and the United States Marshal to serve the complaint, attachments, and order on Emerson and Woods without prepayment of service fees. The defendants were ordered to answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The order directed the defendants, within 91 days after the order was filed, to submit a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion, or to inform the court if summary judgment could not resolve the case. Furnace’s opposition, if any, would be due within 28 days after service of that motion, and any reply would be due within 14 days after service of the opposition. The defendants also had to provide proof that they served Furnace with the required warning about opposing summary judgment.

The parties were permitted to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendants were required to produce Furnace’s dental records related to the condition alleged in the complaint and any treatment for it within 60 days after service of the summons and complaint. The order also required Furnace to serve copies of his court communications on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders; failure to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.