Bynum v. Sweet

Background

Jim Carter Bynum, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical personnel at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad. He alleged that he injured his elbow while leaving a shower on or about January 31, 2020. The court previously found that the complaint stated a possible Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Mary Karen Sweet for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs—meaning disregard of a serious medical condition—and a related negligence claim against Dr. Laufik.

The court had authority to consider the negligence claim because it arose from the same set of facts as the federal claim. The court also explained that it must screen a prisoner’s complaint and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek damages from an immune defendant.

Service on Dr. Laufik

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that Dr. Laufik was a contract doctor rather than a department employee and provided his last known address under seal. The court therefore directed the clerk to issue a summons and the U.S. Marshal to serve Dr. Laufik with the complaint, attachments, and order without prepayment of service fees.

Deadlines and case management

The court ordered the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion—one that could resolve the claims—within 91 days after the order was filed. Any summary-judgment motion had to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The court stated that summary judgment or qualified immunity could not be granted if material facts were disputed.

Bynum’s opposition was due 28 days after the defendants filed their motion, and the defendants’ reply was due 14 days after the opposition. The motion would be considered submitted on the reply deadline, and no hearing would occur unless the court later ordered one. Discovery could proceed under the federal rules without another court order.

The court also required Bynum to serve copies of his communications on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, prosecute the case, and request extensions before the relevant deadline with a showing of good cause. The order warned that failing to respond to a summary-judgment motion could result in judgment against him without a trial.

Disposition

The court issued service and case-management directions. It did not enter judgment on the claims or decide whether Bynum had proved them. The opinion refers to Dr. Laufik as both “Martin Laufik” and “Michael Laufik”; this summary uses “Dr. Laufik” to avoid resolving that inconsistency.