Clark v. Napa State Hospital
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-06512
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Clark v. Napa State Hospital, Judge Freeman dismissed Clark’s civil-rights complaint as inadequately pleaded and untimely.
Alphonso R. Clark and the Napa State Hospital and medical-staff defendants named in the complaint.
What happened
In Alphonso R. Clark v. Napa State Hospital, et al., Alphonso R. Clark, a state prisoner, sued Napa State Hospital and medical staff under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that medical staff misdiagnosed an abscess as a fistula in 2016, refused his request for a second opinion, and provided inadequate treatment.
Clark claimed medical malpractice and sought a second medical opinion, discipline for Dr. Chough, and damages. The court said the allegations described possible negligence or malpractice, but did not allege that the defendants deliberately ignored a serious medical need, as required for a constitutional claim involving a prisoner’s medical care. The court also said the lawsuit was filed too late, even assuming Clark received the maximum extra time allowed because of imprisonment.
The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and as untimely. Judge Freeman did not add a “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” qualifier.
The detailed version
- Clark v. Napa State Hospital · No. 5:21-cv-06512
- Beth Freeman
- Dec. 21, 2021
Background
Alphonso R. Clark, a state prisoner housed at Napa State Hospital, filed this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Napa State Hospital and medical staff. The court stated that it would screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires review of a prisoner’s complaint against a governmental entity or employee and permits dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court said Clark’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee would be addressed separately.
Claims
Clark alleged that defendants misdiagnosed an abscess as a fistula in 2016, causing him to undergo two operations. He attributed the misdiagnosis to medical malpractice by Dr. Chough. He also alleged that Chief Medical Doctor Romono refused his request for a referral to another surgeon for a second opinion and that Nurse Rosa believed he had a fistula but feared losing her job if she disagreed with Dr. Chough. Clark stated that the Medical Board of California refused to act against Dr. Chough in September 2018. He requested a second medical opinion, discipline for Dr. Chough, and damages.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the complaint did not state a constitutional claim. A prisoner alleging unconstitutional medical care must show a serious medical need and that the defendant deliberately disregarded that need. The court found that Clark repeatedly described a misdiagnosis, refusal of a second opinion, and inadequate treatment, but did not allege deliberate indifference. The court explained that medical malpractice or negligence, without more, does not violate the Eighth Amendment.
The court also held that the claim was untimely. It explained that § 1983 claims in California generally use a two-year personal-injury limitations period. California law can add up to two years of tolling for qualifying imprisonment, giving an inmate up to four years to bring a damages claim. Because Clark alleged that the misdiagnosis occurred sometime in 2016, the court concluded that, even assuming he qualified for imprisonment tolling, he may have had no later than December 31, 2020, to file. He filed the action on August 24, 2021, which the court said was at least eight months late.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted and as untimely. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.