Thompson v. Razavi
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-04292
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Thompson v. Razavi, Judge Davila allowed an amended prison medical-care complaint and ordered service and further case deadlines.
The order affects John William Thompson and defendants Dr. Eric Razavi, Dr. Tarrara, and Dr. Mary Sweet. It permits the case to proceed against those three defendants, directs service, and sets deadlines for dispositive motions and responses.
What happened
In John William Thompson v. Eric Razavi, et al., the court allowed Thompson, a California state prisoner representing himself, to file an amended complaint. The amendment identified a previously unnamed defendant as Dr. Mary Sweet.
The case will proceed on Thompson’s claims that Dr. Eric Razavi, Dr. Tarrara, and Dr. Mary Sweet were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court ordered the Clerk to send the defendants the lawsuit materials and service-waiver forms.
Judge Edward J. Davila also ordered the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another motion resolving the claims within 91 days, followed by deadlines for Thompson’s response and the defendants’ reply. The order did not decide whether Thompson’s claims will succeed.
The detailed version
- Thompson v. Razavi · No. 5:20-cv-04292
- Edward Davila
- Jan. 8, 2021
Background
John William Thompson, a California state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical personnel at the Correctional Training Facility and the California Health Care Facility. In an earlier screening order, the court found a potentially valid claim that Eric Razavi and Tarrara were deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs. The court had dismissed claims against Singh as improperly joined and had dismissed a previously unnamed defendant while allowing Thompson an opportunity to identify that person.
Thompson filed an amended complaint identifying the previously unnamed defendant as Dr. Mary Sweet. The amended complaint otherwise remained the same as to the deliberate-indifference claim. No defendant had successfully been served. The court therefore found good cause to allow the amendment and treated the amended complaint as the operative complaint.
Ruling
The court ordered that the action proceed on the Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against Dr. Eric Razavi, Dr. Tarrara, and Dr. Mary Sweet. It directed the Clerk to send each defendant the amended complaint, attachments, lawsuit notice, and service-waiver forms at the Correctional Training Facility. The order explained the defendants’ obligations concerning waiver of service and the potential costs of formal service.
The defendants were ordered to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion addressing the cognizable claims no later than 91 days after the order was filed. If a defendant believed summary judgment was inappropriate, that defendant was directed to notify the court before the deadline. Thompson’s opposition would be due 28 days after the motion, and any reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The court also permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and gave instructions concerning service of filings, prosecution of the case, address changes, and requests for extensions.
What the Order Did Not Decide
This was a case-management and pleading order, not a decision on whether the alleged medical treatment violated the Eighth Amendment. The court had found the claims cognizable for purposes of proceeding, but it did not enter judgment for either side or decide the merits of the claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.