Moore v. Salinas Valley State Prison

Background

Kevin Moe Moore, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Salinas Valley State Prison Mental Health Department and prison employees. He alleged that the defendants failed to provide adequate treatment for his mental-health needs, which led to his attempted suicide on July 3, 2020. He also alleged that the defendants failed to follow regulations describing their responsibilities and required measures.

The court had previously screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening process requires a court to identify claims that are legally sufficient and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or barred because a defendant is immune from monetary relief. The court previously found that Moore could not proceed on a § 1983 claim based only on failure to follow state regulations, but found that his allegations could support an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The action proceeds against Melissa Stolsig, identified as a psychologist; Jonna Donlap, identified as a licensed clinical social worker; Alicia Nix, identified as a psychiatric technician; and Lieutenant Gomez. The remaining claim is that these defendants failed to properly diagnose and treat Moore’s mental-health needs, and that their failures led to his attempted suicide.

Moore elected to dismiss all other claims and defendants identified in the court’s earlier screening order. The court therefore ordered that those claims and defendants be stricken from the complaint, including Salinas Valley State Prison’s “Mental Health Department.”

Court’s Orders

The court directed that the four remaining defendants be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for civil-rights cases filed by prisoners in its custody. It directed the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was filed. A dispositive motion is one that could resolve the case or a claim. The court also set deadlines for Moore’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, and permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

This was a screening and case-management order, not a final decision on whether the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment. The court warned that failure to oppose a future summary-judgment motion could result in judgment against Moore without a trial and that failure to prosecute could lead to dismissal under Rule 41(b).