Smith v. Fu
- Beth Freeman
- 5:19-cv-02119-BLF
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Smith v. Fu, Judge Freeman ordered service on Rachel Ross after finding Jason Smith stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment medical-care claim.
Jason Smith and Rachel Ross; the order advances Smith’s remaining Eighth Amendment claim by directing formal service on Ross and setting the next case deadlines.
What happened
In Smith v. Fu, Jason Smith, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, sued personnel at the Correctional Training Facility under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that prison medical staff mishandled his methadone prescription and withdrawal symptoms. The court had already dismissed the claims against every defendant who appeared, leaving only the claim against Rachel Ross.
The court found that Smith’s allegations were sufficient to state a claim that Ross was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need under the Eighth Amendment. Smith chose to proceed only on that claim and abandoned his attempt to add a First Amendment claim. Because Ross had not responded to the request to waive service, the court ordered the clerk to issue a summons and the U.S. Marshal to serve her.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman also ordered Ross to file a motion for summary judgment or another motion resolving the case within 91 days after the order was filed. The court set deadlines for Smith’s opposition and Ross’s reply, allowed discovery, and warned Smith that failing to oppose a summary-judgment motion could result in judgment against him without a trial.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Fu · No. 5:19-cv-02119-BLF
- Beth Freeman
- Sept. 22, 2020
Background
Jason Smith, a state prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously found that his complaint stated a cognizable claim under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and had allowed him to amend the complaint to try to state a First Amendment claim. Smith later notified the court that he wished to proceed solely on the Eighth Amendment claim.
Smith alleged that he had osteoarthritis and had been prescribed 15 milligrams of methadone. After he declined to sign a waiver and consent document before a scheduled orthopedic evaluation, he alleged that his methadone prescription was reduced. Smith further alleged that, when he asked Defendant Dr. Rachel Ross for medication to manage withdrawal symptoms, Ross prescribed only capsaicin cream and told him that he should have signed the waiver. Smith alleged that he experienced withdrawal symptoms including headaches, dizziness, cramps, and diarrhea.
All defendants who appeared in the case had been dismissed after full briefing. Only the claim against Ross remained. An earlier attempt to serve Ross was returned as undeliverable, and Ross did not respond to a later request to waive service at an address Smith provided.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that it must screen a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief from a governmental officer or employee. At screening, the court identifies claims that are legally sufficient and dismisses claims that are frivolous, malicious, insufficiently pleaded, or barred because they seek monetary relief from an immune defendant. The court also stated that it must read a complaint filed without a lawyer liberally.
For a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a constitutional or federal right and conduct by a person acting under state law. Applying those standards, the court concluded that Smith’s allegations were sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. This order did not decide whether Smith would ultimately prove that claim.
Order
The court ordered the clerk to issue a summons and the U.S. Marshal to serve Ross, without requiring Smith to pay the service fees, with the complaint, its attachments, and the order. The court advised Ross to contact the Attorney General’s Office about possible representation.
The court ordered Ross to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was filed. A summary-judgment motion is a request for judgment based on the evidence when the moving party argues that no material factual dispute requires a trial. The court stated that summary judgment cannot be granted, and qualified immunity cannot be found, if material facts are disputed. The court set deadlines for Smith’s opposition and Ross’s reply, stated that no hearing would be held unless later ordered, and allowed discovery under the federal rules.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.