Quale v. Allison

Background

Matthew K. Quale, a state prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by state actors. The case was reassigned to Judge Edward J. Davila because not all parties had consented to a magistrate judge’s jurisdiction.

Before reassignment, Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson issued a report and recommendation. No objection was filed by the deadline. The court reviewed the record for clear error, found none, and accepted the report and recommendation. That earlier order identified some claims as legally sufficient, dismissed some claims with prejudice, and dismissed other claims with permission to amend. Quale was directed to correct deficiencies in his inadequate-dental-care claim, but the September 14, 2021 deadline passed without a response.

Claims and Dispositions

The court ordered that the action proceed on the cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to inmate safety and medical needs when inmates were transferred from California Institution for Men in Chino to San Quentin in May 2020. The case also proceeds on the claim concerning failure to reduce the prison population by 50%.

The court dismissed all other claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court ordered service on Kathleen Allison, Ralph Diaz, Ron Davis, Ron Broomfield, Dr. A. Pachynski, Dr. L. Escobell, R. Steven Tharratt, Clarence Cryer, and Dr. Joseph Bick. Defendant Clark Kelso was to be served separately. The court terminated all other defendants, including J. Arnold, M. Bloise, B. Haub, B. Dutton, K. France, T. R. Teixeira, and Gavin Newsom.

Next Steps Ordered by the Court

The clerk was directed to use the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program and, when necessary, to provide documents to the United States Marshals Service for service. The court directed that Defendant Kelso be served through the Litigation Support Section of California Correctional Health Care Services.

Within 91 days after the order was filed, the defendants were required to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion addressing the claims found cognizable. A summary-judgment motion is a request for judgment without a trial based on the evidence and the absence of a genuine dispute over important facts. Quale was required to respond within 28 days after the motion was filed, and the defendants could file a reply within 14 days after his opposition. The court also stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and reminded Quale that he was responsible for prosecuting the case and complying with court orders.

Result

This order was a screening and case-management order, not a final decision on whether Quale will ultimately win the surviving claims. Judge Davila dismissed the non-cognizable claims with prejudice and allowed the specified Eighth Amendment claims to continue toward further proceedings.