Whitley v. Javate

Background

Reginald Whitley, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical personnel at Salinas Valley State Prison, where the opinion says he was incarcerated. The court had allowed him to file an amended complaint, which became the operative complaint.

Whitley alleged that he was disabled and covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. He also alleged that he had been shot eleven times in early 2002 and had chronic pain from those injuries. According to the complaint, he had seen Dr. Javate Rosana beginning in September 2017 for chronic pain in his leg and foot.

Screening and Claim

Because Whitley sought relief as a prisoner from a governmental employee, the court conducted the required preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court had to identify claims that were legally sufficient and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that it must read pleadings filed without a lawyer liberally.

Whitley alleged that Dr. Rosana acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by willfully and maliciously denying him needed prescribed medication because of personal bias. He alleged that he continued to experience daily, severe pain and could barely perform normal daily activities without worsening problems.

The court found that these allegations stated a cognizable claim under § 1983 for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. A cognizable claim is one that may proceed because it is legally sufficient at the screening stage. The court did not determine the ultimate truth of the allegations or enter judgment on the claim.

Orders

The court ordered the clerk to mail Dr. Rosana a notice of the lawsuit, requests to waive formal service, waiver forms, and a copy of the order. The order explained that a defendant who fails to cooperate with waiver of service may have to bear the cost of formal service unless there is good cause for the failure.

No later than 91 days after the order was filed, the defendants were directed to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the cognizable claim. A dispositive motion is a motion that could resolve the case or claim. The order stated that any summary-judgment motion must comply with Rule 56 and be supported by adequate factual documentation.

Whitley was directed to file and serve his opposition within 28 days after the motion was filed. The defendants were directed to file any reply within 14 days after the opposition. The order stated that the motion would be submitted without a hearing unless the court later ordered one. It also allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and reminded Whitley that he was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of his address, and meeting deadlines.

Disposition

This was an order allowing the identified § 1983 medical-care claim to proceed after screening and directing service and further litigation. It was not a final ruling on the merits, and the opinion does not state that any motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion had yet been decided.