Zimmons v. Kalisher

Background

Melvin Charles Zimmons, who was incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law. He sought monetary and punitive damages concerning medical care provided in 2018 and 2019.

The court had previously dismissed Zimmons’s original complaint while allowing him to amend it. The amended complaint became the operative complaint. Zimmons alleged that medical staff failed to provide adequate treatment for breathing problems related to Valley Fever. He also alleged that medical staff later found fluid in his lung and a lesion on his spine, that the infection had spread to his spine, and that he eventually underwent spinal surgery.

Screening and claims

Because Zimmons was incarcerated and sued governmental employees, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court identifies claims that may proceed and dismisses claims that are frivolous, legally insufficient, or seek relief from an immune defendant. The court treated the complaint liberally because Zimmons was proceeding without a lawyer.

Zimmons alleged that:

- Leslie failed to properly treat his breathing problems on November 17, 2018; - Haywood failed to properly treat those problems on November 18, 2018; - Silva failed to properly treat them on November 19, 2018; and - Michael failed to properly treat his continuing breathing problems after his discharge from Natividad Medical Center on November 28, 2018.

The court held that these allegations stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. A deliberate-indifference claim requires more than negligence: the official must know of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregard that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to address it.

The court found that Zimmons did not state cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Lozada based on approving a neurosurgery evaluation on April 11, 2019, or against Aaronson based on telling him on May 20, 2019, that he would see a neurosurgeon. The court had previously instructed Zimmons to explain what each defendant did or failed to do that caused a constitutional violation, and found that he had not done so.

Disposition

The court ordered:

- All claims against Kalisher, Helman, Bramov, Litman, Thomson, and Shokry were dismissed without prejudice. - All claims against Lozada and Aaronson were dismissed without further leave to amend. - The claims against Leslie, Haywood, Silva, and Michael were allowed to proceed as cognizable Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.

The clerk was ordered to send the remaining defendants notice of the lawsuit, requests to waive service, the amended complaint, and the order. The court also directed the defendants to answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and established procedures for dispositive motions, including summary judgment and motions based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Discovery was permitted, including depositions of incarcerated witnesses with the court’s authorization.

This order was a screening and case-management ruling. It did not determine whether Zimmons will ultimately prevail on the claims that were allowed to proceed.