Shephard v. Bright

Background

Michael A. Shephard, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking money damages related to his medical treatment. The court had ordered service of the second amended complaint on claims that Dr. Bright failed to approve medication needed for Shephard’s serious medical needs. The second amended complaint also alleged improper treatment of an eye disease, but Shephard did not then know the identities of the defendants involved.

After stating that he had suffered a mental breakdown, Shephard asked the court to appoint a lawyer or stay the case. He later filed a proposed third amended complaint identifying Dr. Phuc Lam. Shephard stated that Dr. Lam was one of the previously unnamed defendants who had failed to properly treat his pain and eye disease.

Rulings

The court construed the proposed third amended complaint as a motion to amend the second amended complaint and add Dr. Lam. The court granted the motion, concluding that the allegations in the second amended complaint and Shephard’s recent submission were sufficient to proceed against Dr. Lam.

The court ordered Dr. Lam, identified in the order as a primary care physician at Salinas Valley State Prison, to be served electronically through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The order described procedures for obtaining a waiver of service and, if necessary, arranging service through the U.S. Marshals Service.

The court denied Shephard’s request for appointment of counsel without prejudice. It applied the Ninth Circuit’s standard requiring consideration of the likelihood of success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to present his claims without a lawyer given the legal complexity. The court found that Shephard had presented his claims through several amended complaints and had identified Dr. Lam, and that he had not provided enough facts or arguments about his mental-health challenges to justify appointing counsel at that time.

The court also declined to stay the case indefinitely. It stated that Shephard could request dismissal of the case without prejudice, which would allow a later refiling, and that the case would be closed during that time with the court taking no action. If Shephard wanted to seek that dismissal, the order required him to inform the court within 14 days after service of the order.

Case-management directives

The order required the defendant to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion within 60 days after service, unless the defendant informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. A summary-judgment motion is a request for judgment based on the evidence without a trial. Shephard would have 30 days to oppose such a motion, and the defendant could file a reply within 15 days after receiving the opposition. The court also authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and reminded Shephard that he had to prosecute the case, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders.

Disposition

The motion to add Dr. Lam was granted. The request for appointment of counsel was denied without prejudice. The court declined to stay the case indefinitely and ordered service and further case-management procedures; it did not decide the underlying medical-treatment claims.