Quair v. San Mateo County Jail

Background

David S Quair, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against San Mateo County Jail and others. The opinion says he sought to assert several claims concerning the conditions of his incarceration. He had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Screening standard

Because Quair was a prisoner suing governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from a defendant legally immune from that relief. The court also applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief, and the requirement that factual allegations make relief plausible rather than merely speculative.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right protected by the Constitution or federal law and that the violation was committed by a person acting under state authority.

Medical claims and other allegations

The court explained that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need violates the Eighth Amendment. A serious medical need may include a condition whose untreated course could cause significant injury or unnecessary pain, an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would consider important, a condition that significantly affects daily activities, or chronic and substantial pain.

The court concluded that all of Quair’s claims lacked factual allegations sufficient to make them plausible. For any medical claim, the court directed him to describe his medical condition, the treatment that should have been provided, and the injuries resulting from the lack of that treatment. The court also stated that if Quair wished to challenge his conviction, he would need to file a petition challenging the conviction rather than pursue that challenge through this complaint.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the complaint with leave to amend. Quair was given 28 days from the filing date of the order to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to use the caption and civil case number from the order and include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. It had to contain every claim Quair wished to pursue because an amended complaint replaces the original complaint, and it could not incorporate the original complaint by reference.

The order also stated that failure to amend within the designated time would result in dismissal of the case. Quair was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of any address change, and complying with court orders; failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Judge James Donato signed the order.