Hopkins v. California Forensic Medical Group

Background

Keith M. Hopkins, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that constitutional violations occurred while he was a pretrial federal detainee at Santa Rita Jail from September 2015 to 2018. Hopkins, who alleged that he has sleep apnea, sought monetary and punitive damages from California Forensic Medical Group (CFMG), Dr. Maria Magat, Alameda County, Sheriff Gregory Ahern, and unidentified defendants.

The complaint asserted five groups of claims: a contract claim concerning access to Hopkins’s continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine and replacement equipment; Fourteenth Amendment medical-care claims concerning a request for a specialist, escorts for CPAP treatment, and a rechargeable CPAP battery; a California Government Code § 845.6 claim; supervisory-liability claims; and additional Fourteenth Amendment medical-care claims.

Screening and Analysis

Because Hopkins sought relief from governmental entities or employees, the court conducted preliminary prisoner-complaint screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires allegations that a federal right was violated and that the violation was committed by a person acting under state law.

The court concluded that Claims 1 through 5, to the extent they were asserted against CFMG, Alameda County, and Ahern, did not allege facts showing that those defendants violated Hopkins’s federal rights. The allegations appeared to rely on the actions of subordinates. The court explained that § 1983 does not impose liability merely because a defendant is responsible for another person’s conduct, and that the complaint did not plead a sufficient basis for municipal liability against CFMG or Alameda County. Those claims were therefore dismissed without prejudice as to CFMG, Alameda County, and Ahern.

The court found that Claims 2 and 5, liberally construed, stated cognizable Fourteenth Amendment denial-of-medical-care claims against Dr. Magat, Jane Does #1 and #2, and Doe #3. The court also found that Claim 3 sufficiently alleged that Jane Does #1 and #2 breached a duty under California law by failing to obtain an escort for Hopkins’s CPAP treatment.

The court permitted Hopkins to use discovery to identify Jane Does #1 and #2 and Doe #3. It required him to provide their names by the deadline for a served defendant to file a dispositive motion. If he did not do so, those defendants would be dismissed without prejudice to Hopkins filing a new action against them. Claims against the remaining Doe defendants, Does 4 through 30, were dismissed without prejudice.

Order

The court ordered service of the summons and complaint on Dr. Magat and directed the clerk to send the complaint and order to the Alameda County Counsel’s Office. Dr. Magat was required to answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order set a schedule for any summary-judgment or other dispositive motion, Hopkins’s opposition, and a reply, and allowed discovery under the federal rules.

This was a prisoner-complaint screening order, not a final decision on whether Hopkins ultimately proved his medical-care, contract, or state-law claims.