Quair v. Speer
- James Donato
- 3:20-cv-00222
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Quair v. Speer, Judge Donato dismissed a state prisoner’s civil-rights complaint but allowed one amendment with more facts.
David Sabino Quair, a state prisoner representing himself, must provide additional factual allegations and identify specific defendants if he continues the case; the defendants are not required to respond to the dismissed complaint unless the case proceeds.
What happened
In Quair v. Speer, David Sabino Quair, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights complaint under federal law about conditions of his incarceration.
The court found that the complaint lacked enough factual allegations to make the claims believable, including claims about medical treatment. It dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and directed Quair to identify specific defendants and explain the treatment denied and resulting injuries.
Judge James Donato gave Quair 42 days after receiving the order to file one amended complaint. The order said the case would be dismissed if he did not amend within that time.
The detailed version
- Quair v. Speer · No. 3:20-cv-00222
- James Donato
- Mar. 27, 2020
Background
David Sabino Quair, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. The complaint raised various claims concerning the conditions of his incarceration, including medical claims.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that prisoner complaints must be screened at the beginning of the case. The court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from a defendant protected from such relief. A complaint must provide enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible, rather than relying on labels or conclusions.
For a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law and action by a person acting under state authority. Regarding medical claims, the court described the Eighth Amendment standard for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The complaint did not provide enough factual allegations to make Quair’s claims plausible. The court said that merely stating that he depended on insulin and had cirrhosis of the liver was insufficient. He needed to describe his medical condition, what treatment should have been provided, the injuries resulting from the lack of treatment, and the actions of specific defendants.
The court also directed Quair to discuss only medical treatment allegedly denied at San Quentin State Prison. It stated that claims about treatment at California Men’s Colony would need to be filed in the Central District of California, and that a challenge to his conviction would need to be brought in a petition challenging his detention rather than in this civil-rights case.
Ruling and next steps
Judge James Donato ordered that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. Quair was given one opportunity to amend and had to file the amended complaint within 42 days after receiving the order. The amended complaint had to include all claims he wished to pursue, the case caption and civil case number, and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The order stated that failing to amend within the designated time would result in dismissal of the case. The court also stated that failure to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.