Lopez v. Wu

Background

Gustavo Colin Lopez, a federal prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint with leave to amend, and Lopez filed an amended complaint.

Lopez alleged that he was mistakenly released from federal custody and transferred to San Quentin State Prison while awaiting deportation by federal authorities. He alleged that, while walking to his housing unit, a riot broke out and an unknown person assaulted him, rendering him unconscious and causing serious injuries. He was later deported to Mexico while recovering. The opinion states that the incident appeared to have occurred sometime between 2013 and 2015.

Screening standard

Because Lopez sought relief as a prisoner from governmental defendants, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court was required to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a complaint must include enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible, rather than relying on labels or conclusions.

To state a claim under § 1983, Lopez had to allege both a violation of a right protected by the Constitution or federal law and action by a person acting under state law.

Failure-to-protect claim

Lopez alleged that defendants failed to protect him from an assault by another inmate. The court explained that prison officials must take reasonable steps to protect prisoners from violence by other prisoners. For an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim, however, Lopez had to identify specific defendants and allege facts showing that each knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his safety and failed to take reasonable steps to address it.

The court had previously told Lopez that merely alleging a riot and resulting injuries was insufficient. It also explained that identifying defendants as supervisors was not enough; he had to allege their personal involvement or a sufficient connection between their conduct and the constitutional violation. The court found that the amended complaint repeated the same general allegations and did not correct these deficiencies.

Medical-care claim

Lopez also alleged that a new defendant doctor failed to treat him properly. The court found that he did not provide specific facts about his injuries or explain how the doctor was deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs. The court stated that Lopez needed to provide more information about how the doctor's action in allowing him to be released from custody for deportation violated his constitutional rights concerning his injuries.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. It gave Lopez one final opportunity to file a second amended complaint by February 18, 2020. The second amended complaint had to use the caption and civil case number from the order, include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, and contain all claims Lopez wished to pursue because an amended complaint replaces the earlier complaint. The court stated that failure to file an amended complaint could result in dismissal of the case. It also directed Lopez to keep the court informed of any address change and warned that failure to prosecute or comply with court orders could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.