Lopez v. Wu

Background

Gustavo Colin Lopez, a federal prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously dismissed his earlier complaints while allowing him to amend. Lopez then filed a second amended complaint.

Lopez alleged that prison officials failed to protect him from an assault by another prisoner and that he received inadequate medical care. He stated that he was walking to his housing unit at San Quentin State Prison when a riot began, that an unknown person assaulted him, and that he lost consciousness and suffered serious injuries. He said he was later deported to Mexico while recovering from those injuries.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that prisoner complaints against government entities or officials must be screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At screening, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also described the requirement that a § 1983 complaint allege both a violation of a constitutional or federal right and action under state law.

The court described the standards for Lopez’s allegations. Prison officials may violate the Eighth Amendment by failing to take reasonable measures to protect prisoners from violence when they are deliberately indifferent to a serious risk to inmate safety. Deliberate indifference means that an official knew about and disregarded an excessive risk. The court also explained that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs requires allegations concerning both the seriousness of the medical need and the defendant’s response.

The court found that Lopez still had not provided enough information about the defendants’ individual actions or how those actions violated his constitutional rights. The court specifically instructed him to describe what the doctors who treated him did, rather than relying on allegations about supervisors who worked at the prison. It also said he needed to explain how the doctors’ decisions to allow his release from custody for deportation violated his constitutional rights concerning his injuries.

The court further addressed the limitations period. Section 1983 uses the forum state’s limitations period for personal-injury actions. The court stated that California’s applicable period is two years and that California law can toll, or pause, the period for certain imprisoned people. According to the court, the total period was four years in this case. Because the incident occurred in April 2013 and Lopez said the case was filed in July 2019, the court required him to explain why the case should not be dismissed as untimely.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the second amended complaint with leave to amend. The court ordered Lopez to file a third amended complaint no later than May 22, 2020, using the required caption and case number and placing the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. The court stated that the third amended complaint would replace the earlier complaint, must include every claim Lopez wished to pursue, and could not incorporate the earlier complaint by reference. The order warned that failure to file could result in dismissal of the case and separately stated that failure to comply with court orders could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.