Thompson v. Razavi

Background

John William Thompson, identified as a California state prisoner, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued medical personnel at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad and the California Health Care Facility in Stockton. The court noted that Thompson’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee would be addressed in a separate order.

Thompson alleged that Dr. Eric Razavi provided dental treatment at the Correctional Training Facility in May 2016 that led to an infection, and that Razavi refused to prescribe antibiotics. Thompson also alleged that Dr. Tarrara and an unidentified primary-care physician ignored his complaints and delayed necessary treatment from June through August 2016, resulting in emergency surgery. He separately alleged that Dr. Singh delayed treatment while providing care at the California Health Care Facility in May 2019.

Screening and Claims

Because Thompson is a prisoner suing governmental medical personnel, the court conducted the required preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally valid claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. It also stated that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state authority.

The court held that, when read liberally, Thompson’s allegations were sufficient to state Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Razavi and Tarrara. The court did not decide whether Thompson would ultimately prove those claims.

The court dismissed the Doe defendant because the person’s identity was unknown. It stated that Thompson could use discovery to identify the person and then ask for permission to amend the complaint and issue a summons. The discussion says the Doe defendant was dismissed with leave to amend, while the conclusion states that the Doe defendant was dismissed without prejudice.

The court dismissed Singh from this action without prejudice. It ruled that the 2019 claim concerning care at the California Health Care Facility was improperly joined with the 2016 claims concerning care at the Correctional Training Facility because the claims did not arise from the same transaction or occurrence. The court also stated that a claim involving the California Health Care Facility should be filed separately in the Eastern District of California.

Orders and Next Steps

The clerk was directed to send the lawsuit and service-waiver materials to Razavi and Tarrara at the Correctional Training Facility and to send Thompson a copy of the order. The clerk was also directed to terminate Singh from the action. The defendants were ordered to file, within 91 days after the order was filed, a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion addressing the claims found cognizable. Thompson’s opposition would be due 28 days after any such motion, and the defendants’ reply would be due 14 days later.

The order also addressed service of process, discovery, communications with the court, prosecution of the case, and requests for extensions. Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order on October 6, 2020.