McGinnis v. Davis

Background

Marcus G. McGinnis, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state officials for violations of constitutional rights. The lawsuit concerned prison officials’ responses to his requests for dental care and medical complications that later arose.

The court had previously determined that, when read liberally, the complaint stated a claim against Dr. Earl Jones and nurse Salonga for deliberate indifference to McGinnis’s dental and medical needs. “Deliberate indifference” means knowingly disregarding a serious medical need. The court previously found that the complaint did not state a claim against six other listed defendants and gave McGinnis until September 4, 2020, to file an amended complaint addressing those defendants.

McGinnis did not file an amended complaint, and the deadline passed.

Ruling

The court stated that the complaint presented a legally recognizable § 1983 claim against Dr. Earl Jones and Pierre Salonga, identified as a dentist and registered nurse on the dental or medical staff at San Quentin State Prison. All other claims and defendants were dismissed. The case therefore proceeded against Jones and Salonga.

Service and scheduling

The clerk was ordered to issue a summons, and the United States Marshal was ordered to serve Jones and Salonga without requiring McGinnis to pay service fees. The materials to be served included the summons, the complaint, the earlier dismissal order allowing amendment, and this order.

The court set January 15, 2021, as the deadline for defendants to file and serve a motion for summary judgment or another motion that could resolve the case. McGinnis’s opposition was due February 26, 2021, and any defendants’ reply was due March 19, 2021. If defendants filed a summary-judgment motion, they were required to provide McGinnis with a notice explaining the summary-judgment procedures.

The order explained that summary judgment may be granted when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. It also warned that McGinnis could not rely only on the allegations in his complaint to oppose such a motion; he would need to provide specific supporting facts in permitted evidence. The order separately explained that a motion based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies would seek dismissal of the case.

Other directions

The court allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without requiring another court order. It directed McGinnis to serve copies of his court filings on the opposing party or that party’s counsel, to keep the court informed of address changes, and to comply with court orders and deadlines. The order stated that failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Judge Susan Illston also directed McGinnis to include the case name and case number on documents submitted in the case.