Chapman v. San Mateo County
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-09038
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Chapman v. Richardson, Judge Gilliam ordered Chapman to explain within 28 days why his civil-rights case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failing to exhaust prison remedies.
Marcel E. Chapman was ordered to respond within 28 days. Sgt. Doug Richardson remains the defendant, and the case had not yet been dismissed; the court warned that it would dismiss the action without prejudice if Chapman failed to respond.
What happened
Chapman v. Richardson concerns a civil-rights claim by Marcel E. Chapman, an inmate at Maguire Correctional Facility, against custody officer Sgt. Doug Richardson. Chapman alleged that Richardson took medical footwear ordered for his broken toe, causing him pain when he had to wear shower shoes.
The court reviewed Chapman's amended complaint under the law requiring early screening of prisoner cases. The court said it appeared Chapman had not completed the prison grievance process before bringing the claim. The alleged violation happened after the original case was filed but before Chapman filed his amended complaint, and he did not report completing the required process.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered Chapman to explain within 28 days why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failing to complete the administrative process. The court did not dismiss the case at this stage and did not decide whether Richardson was deliberately indifferent to Chapman's medical needs. If Chapman does not respond on time, the court said it will dismiss the case without further notice.
The detailed version
- Chapman v. San Mateo County · No. 4:21-cv-09038
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 1, 2022
Background
Marcel E. Chapman filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal rights. Chapman is an inmate at Maguire Correctional Facility. His amended complaint alleged that Doctor Spencer authorized medical footwear because Chapman had a broken toe and needed to avoid further damage to his foot. Chapman alleged that, on December 2, 2021, Sgt. Doug Richardson, a custody officer at the facility, knew about the medical order and the pain Chapman would experience without the footwear but seized the shoes and did not return them. Chapman alleged that wearing shower shoes for extended periods caused extreme pain and suffering, violating the Eighth Amendment prohibition on deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
Screening and exhaustion issue
The court reviewed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires courts to screen prisoner lawsuits seeking relief from governmental entities or officials. The court must identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or barred because the defendant is immune from monetary relief. The court also explained that the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to complete available administrative remedies before bringing a lawsuit about prison conditions.
The lawsuit was filed on or about November 23, 2021. The alleged constitutional violation occurred on December 2, 2021, and Chapman filed the amended complaint on or about February 24, 2022. The court explained that a claim added in an amended complaint may satisfy the exhaustion requirement if the prisoner completed the administrative process before filing that amended complaint. However, Chapman did not report exhausting administrative remedies for the claim against Richardson. In response to the complaint form's question about why he had not presented the claim through the grievance process, Chapman wrote only: “Eighth Amendment violation to a serious medical need. ‘Deliberate indifference’.”
Order
The court did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, it ordered Chapman to show cause—that is, explain—within 28 days why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court stated that failing to respond within that period would result in dismissal without further notice. The order did not decide the merits of Chapman's Eighth Amendment claim.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.