Stuckey v. Risenhoover
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:19-cv-03780
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Stuckey v. Woods, Judge Rogers dismissed venue-based and other claims but allowed two medical-care claims to proceed after prisoner-case screening.
Andre Kenneth Stuckey’s claims about Kern Valley State Prison were dismissed without prejudice for refiling in the Eastern District of California; his official-capacity damages claims were dismissed with prejudice; his supervisory claims against Bill Woods and S. Gates were dismissed without prejudice; and two medical-care claims against the remaining defendants will proceed.
What happened
In Andre Kenneth Stuckey v. Bill Woods, et al., the court screened Stuckey’s civil-rights complaint. He alleged that prison medical staff delayed treatment for two health conditions during his incarceration at Pelican Bay State Prison and that other problems occurred at Kern Valley State Prison.
The court dismissed the claims about Kern Valley State Prison without prejudice so Stuckey could refile them in the Eastern District of California. It dismissed claims for money damages against the defendants in their official capacities with prejudice and dismissed without prejudice the supervisory-liability claims against Bill Woods and S. Gates.
The court found Stuckey’s two medical-care claims against the remaining defendants sufficient to proceed. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered the defendants served and set deadlines for their answers, motions, and discovery.
The detailed version
- Stuckey v. Risenhoover · No. 4:19-cv-03780
- Yvonne Rogers
- Jan. 31, 2020
Background
Andre Kenneth Stuckey, a state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought money damages. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee. He sued Bill Woods, S. Gates, Sue Risenhoover, Maria Bostanjian, Devinder Kumar, Laurie Thomas, Theodore D. Utecht, Jonathan Akanno, and L. Krzysiak.
The complaint described alleged problems at two prisons. For claims involving Pelican Bay State Prison, Stuckey alleged that Risenhoover, Bostanjian, Kumar, and Thomas delayed treatment for seven years for mild peripheral blood eosinophilia, allegedly causing extensive degeneration of his colon. He also alleged that Risenhoover, Bostanjian, Kumar, Thomas, Woods, and Gates delayed evaluating and treating an elevated bilirubin level for four years, allegedly leading to reactions to supplements, fingernail discoloration, deformities, infections, and pain. The opinion does not provide the specific allegations concerning the problems at Kern Valley State Prison.
Court’s screening and rulings
The court conducted the preliminary review required for a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief from government officials. It explained that a claim under Section 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by someone acting under state authority.
The court dismissed the claims concerning all problems during Stuckey’s incarceration at Kern Valley State Prison without prejudice to refiling them in a new civil-rights action in the Eastern District of California, because that prison is located in that district.
Stuckey sued the defendants individually and in their official capacities for money damages. The court dismissed with prejudice the claims against the remaining named defendants in their official capacities for monetary damages, applying the rule that the state’s immunity barred such damages claims here.
The court also dismissed without prejudice Stuckey’s supervisory-liability claims against Woods and Gates. It found that Stuckey did not allege that they personally violated his rights and that liability cannot be based only on the conduct of their subordinates. The court stated that he had not alleged facts showing that Woods or Gates participated in, directed, or knew about the alleged violations and failed to prevent them.
The court found Claims 1 and 2 against the remaining defendants cognizable, meaning sufficiently stated to continue past the initial screening. It did not decide whether Stuckey ultimately would prove those claims or whether the defendants violated his rights.
Further proceedings
The clerk was ordered to send the complaint and related documents to the Pelican Bay defendants and the California State Attorney General’s Office for service-related purposes. The defendants were ordered to answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court set a schedule for dispositive motions, including summary-judgment motions and motions concerning exhaustion of available administrative remedies. It authorized discovery under the Federal Rules, including depositions of incarcerated witnesses, and reminded Stuckey of his responsibilities to serve filings, keep the court informed of address changes, and prosecute the case. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers signed the order.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.