Scott v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Background

Donnie Scott, an inmate at California State Prison–Los Angeles County, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at Pelican Bay State Prison, where he had previously been housed. He alleged that Dr. Kumar and RN Golding failed to provide appropriate medical treatment for his fractured thumb. The court reviewed the amended complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

The court’s earlier screening order had found a potentially valid Eighth Amendment medical-treatment claim and a state-law claim under California Government Code § 845.6 against Dr. Kumar and RN Golding. It had dismissed Scott’s federal due-process claim with prejudice and allowed him to amend his equal-protection claim and claims against Warden Robertson.

Claims and analysis

The court concluded that the allegations against Dr. Kumar and RN Golding again stated cognizable Claims I and II: an Eighth Amendment claim based on the alleged failure to provide appropriate medical treatment and a state-law claim under California Government Code § 845.6.

The court held that Scott did not state an equal-protection claim. He alleged that Dr. Kumar and RN Golding denied him the same medical attention provided to prisoners with similar injuries, but he did not allege that the difference in treatment was intentional and invidious, or unjustified by any rational basis. The court therefore dismissed that claim but gave Scott one more opportunity to amend it if he could truthfully provide additional supporting facts.

The court also found that Scott’s allegation that Warden Robertson failed to supervise Dr. Kumar and RN Golding was conclusory and did not state a cognizable claim under § 1983. The court gave Scott one more opportunity to allege facts from which Robertson’s liability could reasonably be inferred.

Disposition

The court ordered that the medical-treatment allegations against Dr. Kumar and RN Golding could proceed as cognizable claims. It dismissed with leave to amend the equal-protection claim and the claims against Warden Robertson. Scott could either file a second amended complaint within 28 days or proceed solely on the claims the court had found cognizable. If he did not file a qualifying second amended complaint, the amended complaint would remain the operative complaint and the action would proceed only on those cognizable claims.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order on January 21, 2020.