Red v. Heck
- James Donato
- 3:20-cv-02853
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Red v. Heck, Judge Donato dismissed George Red’s untimely medical-care lawsuit with prejudice and without leave to amend.
George Red’s § 1983 medical-care claims against Quincy Heck and the other defendants were dismissed with prejudice; the court directed the clerk to close the case.
What happened
In Red v. Heck, George Red, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under a federal law that allows claims against state actors. He alleged that several defendants provided inadequate medical care while he was incarcerated in Lompoc, California, in 1995.
The court explained that such a medical-care claim must be supported by facts showing deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. But it dismissed the case as untimely: the events occurred more than 20 years earlier, and Red had not presented arguments showing that the lawsuit was filed on time. The court declined to transfer the case because the timing problem was clear.
Judge Donato dismissed the case with prejudice and without leave to amend, concluding that further amendment would be futile. The clerk was directed to close the action.
The detailed version
- Red v. Heck · No. 3:20-cv-02853
- James Donato
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
George Red, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously dismissed an amended complaint while allowing an opportunity to amend, and Red then filed a second amended complaint. The case was brought against Quincy Heck and other defendants.
Red alleged that several defendants provided inadequate medical care in 1995, while he was incarcerated in Lompoc, California. The court noted that Lompoc is in the Central District of California, but it chose not to transfer the case.
Court’s analysis
The court described the required preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint 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 explained that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but they still must contain enough factual allegations to make the requested relief plausible.
For a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right protected by the Constitution or federal law and conduct by a person acting under state law. The court explained that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need violates the Eighth Amendment. It described deliberate indifference as requiring an examination of the seriousness of the medical need and the nature of the defendant’s response.
The court had previously informed Red that he needed to address whether his claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Section 1983 has no limitations period of its own, so courts use the forum state’s period for personal-injury claims. The court applied California’s two-year limitations period. It stated that Red had not presented arguments that would make the action timely and that the underlying events were untimely by more than 20 years.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case rather than transferring it. Because Red had already received multiple opportunities to amend and further amendment would be futile, the court dismissed the case without leave to amend. In its conclusion, the court stated that the case was dismissed with prejudice and directed the clerk to close the action.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.