Steward v. Stevenson
- Edward Chen
- 3:20-cv-09310
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Steward v. Stevenson, Judge Chen ordered service on eleven defendants for an Eighth Amendment medical-care claim and dismissed all other claims and defendants.
The order allowed Jason J. Steward’s Eighth Amendment medical-care claim to proceed against Officers Stevenson, Soto, Barroso, Mariscal, Benitez, Futch, Sandoval, Grady, Mendez, and Lopez, and Nurse Bagaala. It dismissed all other claims and defendants and established procedures affecting the parties’ service, discovery, and briefing.
What happened
In Steward v. Stevenson, Jason J. Steward, a state-prison inmate representing himself, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under a federal law known as Section 1983. After the court found problems with his first amended complaint, Steward chose to continue only with the medical-care claims the court had identified as legally sufficient to proceed.
The court allowed the case to proceed against ten officers and Nurse Bagaala on Steward’s claim that they were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. He alleged that the officers failed to summon emergency medical care and that Bagaala failed to treat him and summon emergency care. The court dismissed all other claims and defendants.
Judge Edward Chen ordered that the eleven listed defendants be served and set deadlines for dispositive motions, including summary judgment. The order also allowed discovery to begin and warned Steward that failing to prosecute the case or follow court orders could lead to dismissal.
The detailed version
- Steward v. Stevenson · No. 3:20-cv-09310
- Edward Chen
- Sept. 29, 2021
Background
Jason J. Steward, an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison who had previously been incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had dismissed his original complaint but allowed him to amend it to correct pleading deficiencies.
After reviewing Steward’s first amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the statute requiring early screening of certain prisoner complaints, the court found one legally sufficient claim: deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court had allowed Steward to amend again to try to preserve his other attempted claims. Instead, he filed a reply asking the court to proceed only with the medical-care claims previously found sufficient.
Claims Allowed to Proceed
The court ordered the case to proceed against Officers Stevenson, Soto, Barroso, Mariscal, Benitez, Futch, Sandoval, Grady, Mendez, and Lopez, and Nurse Bagaala. Steward alleged that the officers failed to summon emergency medical care for him. He alleged that Bagaala failed to treat him and failed to summon emergency medical care.
Disposition
The court ordered service of the first amended complaint and Steward’s reply on those eleven defendants. It dismissed all other claims and defendants. This order did not decide whether Steward would ultimately win the medical-care claim; it permitted that claim to move forward after screening.
Case Administration
The order directed service through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program and provided procedures for defendants who did not waive service. It set a deadline of December 24, 2021, for defendants to file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion, February 4, 2022, for Steward’s opposition, and February 23, 2022, for defendants’ reply. The court also authorized discovery, required Steward to serve copies of his filings on defense counsel, and warned that failure to prosecute or comply with court orders could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.