Stuckey v. State of California

Background

Andre Kenneth Stuckey, a state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought monetary damages. He named the State of California; California Correctional Health Care Services; the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; S. Gates, identified as Chief of Health Care at California Correctional Health Care Services; dentists Stephen Taylor and Allison Phang; Dental Assistant Juliann Knight; and Dental Hygienist Theresa Bauer.

The complaint alleged that, from December 19, 2018, through July 31, 2019, defendants delayed reasonable accommodations for treatment of his cavities while aware of his mental disabilities. He asserted violations of the Eighth Amendment and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. He also alleged that Taylor, Phang, and Knight delayed dental treatment for retaliatory and race-based reasons. Finally, he alleged that California, California Correctional Health Care Services, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gates, and Bauer denied him reasonable access to dental cleaning for more than a year, causing dental problems and odors.

Screening analysis

The court conducted the required preliminary review of a prisoner’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under that review, the court must identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek relief from an immune defendant.

The court ruled that an institution in which a prisoner is incarcerated and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation are proper defendants for a Title II Americans with Disabilities Act claim. It dismissed with prejudice any Americans with Disabilities Act claims against the State of California and California Correctional Health Care Services. The court also found that Stuckey had not adequately alleged the elements of a Title II claim against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: that he was an individual with a disability, was otherwise qualified to receive a public entity’s services or programs, and was excluded from or denied those benefits because of his disability.

The court further held that the State of California, California Correctional Health Care Services, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation were protected from the remaining claims by the Eleventh Amendment and dismissed those remaining claims without prejudice. It dismissed Stuckey’s supervisory-liability claim against Gates without prejudice because the complaint did not allege that Gates personally violated Stuckey’s rights or participated in, directed, or knew of the alleged violations and failed to prevent them. The court explained that § 1983 does not impose liability on a supervisor merely because of a subordinate’s conduct.

Disposition and next steps

The court found Claims 1, 2, and 3 against Taylor, Phang, Knight, and Bauer cognizable, meaning sufficiently stated to proceed at the screening stage. It ordered the Clerk to send those defendants the lawsuit and service-waiver materials and copies of the complaint and order. The order also set procedures for answers, dispositive motions—including summary judgment and possible motions based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies—and discovery. It did not decide whether Stuckey would ultimately prevail on the claims allowed to proceed.

The order was issued by the court on March 3, 2020.