Torfason v. Bernal

Background

James Paul Andrew Torfason, identified as a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued officials of the Monterey County Sheriff’s Department over events at the Monterey County Jail.

An earlier amended complaint asserted claims against unidentified defendants referred to as “Doe” defendants. The court found that complaint stated claims that could proceed and directed Torfason to identify those defendants. In a second amended complaint, Torfason identified Deputies Michael Lowe and Matthew Sullivan.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

Read broadly, the second amended complaint alleged that Lowe and Sullivan were responsible for allowing another inmate to gain access to Torfason and ultimately assault him. The court stated that these allegations were sufficient to state claims for relief against Lowe and Sullivan under § 1983.

Third Amended Complaint

The court denied Torfason’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. Torfason did not provide a proposed third amended complaint and stated that he wanted to add unnamed defendants who allegedly failed to provide adequate medical care for his injuries.

The court ruled that the proposed medical-care claims were not properly joined in this action. The proposed defendants were nurses and doctors rather than Lowe and Sullivan, and the proposed claims concerned medical care rather than controlling inmates’ access to one another. The court cited Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20. It stated that Torfason could bring the medical-care claims in a new, separate case, but not in this one. The order also states that the request to add the new defendants was denied.

Service and Case Management

The clerk was directed to issue a summons, and the U.S. Marshal was directed to serve Lowe and Sullivan, without requiring Torfason to prepay fees, with the summons, the second amended complaint and attachments, and the order. The defendants were ordered to file an answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The order authorized discovery under the Federal Rules and stated that no additional court order under Rule 30(a)(2) was required before discovery could begin. It also required the defendants, within 91 days after the order was issued, to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion, unless they informed the court that the case could not be resolved by summary judgment. The order established deadlines for Torfason’s opposition and the defendants’ reply and stated that no hearing would be held unless the court later ordered one.

Other Rulings and Requirements

The order’s title says “ORDER OF SERVICE; DENYING LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR FURTHER SUBPOENA.” The provided body discusses the denial of leave to file the third amended complaint and the denial of adding the new defendants, but it does not separately explain the request for a further subpoena.

The order required Torfason to serve communications to the court on the defendants or their counsel once counsel was designated. It also warned that Torfason had responsibility for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of address changes, and complying with court orders; failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).

Disposition

The court allowed the § 1983 claims against Lowe and Sullivan to proceed to service, denied leave to file the proposed third amended complaint, and denied adding the proposed medical-care defendants. Judge Jeffrey S. White issued the order on May 4, 2022.