Maldonado v. Ashby
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-07780
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Maldonado v. Ashby, Judge Ryu found the prisoner’s medical-care claim legally sufficient for screening and ordered service on Dr. Ashby.
Juan Maldonado’s civil-rights case against Dr. Jonathan Ashby proceeds past initial screening, and Ashby must be served and respond under the procedures set by the court.
What happened
In Maldonado v. Ashby, Juan Maldonado, a state prisoner without a lawyer, sued CTF physician Dr. Jonathan Ashby under a federal civil-rights law. Maldonado alleged that Ashby ignored his repeated nosebleeds and delayed referring him to a specialist.
Maldonado said he suffered frequent bleeding, breathing problems, and lost sleep from March through October 2020. He alleged that medication did not help, that Ashby did not respond to later medical requests, and that a specialist eventually treated the bleeding with nasal cautery.
The court ruled that Maldonado had stated a legally sufficient claim that Ashby was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and ordered that Ashby be served. Judge Ryu also set procedures for the case to continue, including later motions and discovery.
The detailed version
- Maldonado v. Ashby · No. 5:21-cv-07780
- Beth Freeman
- Apr. 28, 2022
Background
Juan Maldonado, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility, filed this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state authority for violating constitutional rights. He sued Dr. Jonathan Ashby, a physician at the facility, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Maldonado seeks monetary and punitive damages.
Maldonado alleged that he experienced repeated nosebleeds from March 10 through October 15, 2020. He said the bleeding occurred several times per week and later three to five times per day, causing dry blood to interfere with his breathing during sleep and resulting in months of lost sleep. He alleged that he reported the condition to Ashby on March 30, 2020, requested an early specialist referral, and was refused. He further alleged that Ashby prescribed medication that did not help and did not respond to additional medical requests submitted in September. On October 10, Ashby referred him to a specialist, who evaluated him on October 16 and treated the bleeding with nasal cautery.
Screening and ruling
Because a prisoner sued a governmental employee, the court conducted the required preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need violates the Eighth Amendment. It concluded that, when liberally read, Maldonado’s complaint stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Ashby.
The court ordered that Ashby be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service process for prisoner civil-rights cases. It directed the parties to follow specified procedures for service, responsive pleadings, dispositive motions, and discovery. The order also stated that Maldonado’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee would be granted in a separate written order. The opinion is an order allowing the claim to proceed past initial screening; it does not decide whether Maldonado will ultimately prevail.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.