Red v. Heck

Background

George Red, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The original complaint had been dismissed with leave to amend, and Red filed an amended complaint. The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint.

Red alleged inadequate medical care. According to the opinion, he described attempts to X-ray a growth and obtain a sample, but both attempts failed. The growth was later removed, and Red contended that earlier removal would have resulted in fewer medical problems. The opinion’s text is incomplete at one point regarding the defendants Red named and described.

Legal standard

A claim under § 1983 requires allegations that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by a person acting under state law. For inadequate medical care, a prisoner must allege facts showing deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. The court explained that this requires both a serious medical need and a sufficiently wrongful response to that need. A serious medical need may involve a condition that could cause significant further injury, substantial pain, or a condition important enough that a reasonable doctor or patient would consider it worthy of treatment.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the amended complaint still failed to state a claim. Although Red had supplied some additional information, he did not explain how the described actions were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.

The court also addressed timeliness. Section 1983 has no separate limitations period, so the court applied California’s two-year period for personal-injury claims. The opinion stated that the events Red described occurred in 1994 and 1995 and that, even accounting for the imprisonment-related tolling discussed in the footnote, the limitations period was at most four years. The court therefore required Red to explain why the case was not untimely. It also required him to identify the specific defendants, describe how each violated his constitutional rights, and state where he was incarcerated when the events occurred.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. It ordered Red to file a second amended complaint by October 5, 2020, using the caption and civil case number stated in the order and labeling the first page “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The new complaint had to include all claims because an amended complaint replaces the earlier complaint and could not incorporate the earlier pleading by reference. The order stated that failure to amend on time could result in dismissal of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). It also stated that failure to prosecute or comply with court orders could result in dismissal. Judge James Donato signed the order.