Chapman v. Richardson

Background

Marcel E. Chapman, an inmate at Maguire Correctional Facility, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state law for violations of federal rights. The defendants were San Mateo County, the San Mateo Sheriff’s Office, Sergeant Doug Richardson, and San Mateo Correctional Health Services medical staff member Amanda, whom the complaint identified as either a nurse practitioner or a doctor.

Chapman alleged that he had a medical authorization, issued on June 28, 2019, for medically appropriate footwear because of a previously broken toe and nerve damage. He alleged that the authorization remained valid during his stay at the facility, but Richardson imposed a facility-wide rule prohibiting the footwear. Chapman further alleged that on December 7, 2021, Richardson required Amanda and other medical staff to provide Richardson with Chapman’s confidential medical file without Chapman’s authorization and to take his footwear. Chapman alleged that losing the footwear caused severe pain requiring pain medication. He claimed that the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment.

Screening and Possible Grounds for Dismissal

Because Chapman sought relief as a prisoner from governmental defendants, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary screening. The court explained that it must identify legally sufficient claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but still must provide enough information to give defendants fair notice of the claims.

The court identified two possible grounds for dismissing the action. First, it appeared duplicative of Chapman’s earlier related case, identified in the opinion as Case No. 21-cv-9038. The court stated that the earlier case had included allegations that Richardson denied Chapman medically authorized footwear, and that the first amended complaint in that case had alleged that Richardson seized the shoes on December 2, 2021. The court was still addressing which complaint controlled in that earlier case. If this action was duplicative, the court stated that dismissal would be required.

Second, the court addressed the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s exhaustion requirement. That requirement generally bars a prisoner from bringing a federal lawsuit about prison conditions until available administrative remedies have been completed. Chapman acknowledged that he had not exhausted his remedies for this claim before filing. He said he had not done so because he feared retaliation. The court recognized that intimidation can make a grievance system unavailable, but said the complaint’s exhibits contradicted Chapman’s assertion that he reasonably believed he could not use the grievance process. The exhibits showed that Chapman filed a claim with San Mateo County on November 8, 2021, and a grievance on December 9, 2021. The court also noted that he filed the earlier related case on November 22, 2021, and another lawsuit on February 8, 2022.

Order

The court issued an order to show cause, meaning it required Chapman to explain why the case should not be dismissed. It gave him 28 days from the date of the order to explain why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice as duplicative of the earlier related case and dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court warned that failing to respond on time would result in dismissal without further notice. This order itself did not enter either dismissal. The order was signed by United States District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.