Stephens v. Hausner

Background

Dean Paul Stephens, a California parolee, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of federal constitutional or legal rights by people acting under state law. He sued various doctors whom the complaint identified as being located in Marin County. The court stated that Stephens’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee would be addressed separately.

Stephens identified Dr. Jeanette Krowlikowski, Dr. Hausner, Marelli, Dr. Michael McCabe, and Dr. “Peter Barren Vaughey/Voy Vought” in the complaint. He referred to marijuana use, schizophrenia, an ultrasound, a diagnosis of “grave disability,” alleged traumatic brain damage, alleged statements about his bone structure, and events involving people at the Old Marin County Jail. He sought damages for personal injury, bodily or mental harm, wage loss, and general damages.

Screening and deficiencies

The court explained that federal law requires preliminary screening when a prisoner seeks relief from a governmental entity or its officer or employee. The court must dismiss claims that do not state a claim for relief or that seek money from an immune defendant. Although pleadings filed without a lawyer are read liberally, a Section 1983 claim must allege both a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law and action by a person acting under state law.

The court found the complaint too unclear and vague. It could not determine whether any named defendant was a state actor, which constitutional right any defendant allegedly violated, or what conduct each defendant supposedly committed. The court also noted that, although Stephens identified four defendants, his factual allegations mentioned only two of them. Finally, the court could not determine whether the events and claims were related. The court directed that any amended complaint comply with the federal rules governing the short and plain statement of a claim and the joinder of claims and defendants.

Disposition

The court ordered that the complaint was DISMISSED with leave to amend. Stephens was given 28 days from the filing date of the order to file an amended complaint correcting the stated deficiencies. The amended complaint had to use the case caption and number from the order and include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The court explained that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint; claims and defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the action.

The court further ordered that failure to respond as required and within the stated period would result in dismissal with prejudice of the action for failure to state a claim, without further notice. The Clerk was ordered to send Stephens two copies of the court’s complaint form with the order.