Florence v. Allison

Background

David Florence, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion states that Florence had been granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.

Screening standard

Because Florence sought relief against government defendants, the court was required to conduct an initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that it must identify legally sufficient claims or dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. It also applied the rule that filings by people without lawyers must be read liberally.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated and that the violation was committed by a person acting under state authority. The court also discussed the requirement that a complaint contain enough facts to make the claimed right to relief plausible, rather than relying only on labels or conclusions.

Claim recognized

The court concluded that, when read liberally, Florence’s allegations stated a legally sufficient claim that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The opinion did not resolve the ultimate merits of that claim.

Order

The court ordered service of the complaint on Secretary Kathleen Allison and Appeals Examiner Kenneth J. Allen through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; G. Cates through California Correctional Health Care Services; and Warden J. Robertson, Chief Executive Officer Bill Woods, Chief Medical Executive Donna Jacobsen, Dr. Mauricio Martinez, Licensed Vocational Nurse L. Ford, Licensed Vocational Nurse A. Romero, Facility Captain J. Berg, and Chief Mental Health Dr. K. Limon through Pelican Bay State Prison. The order listed G. Cates through California Correctional Health Care Services again in its service instructions.

Service on Receiver J. Clark Kelso was ordered to proceed separately through electronic service on Kelso and his attorney. The order provided procedures for service waivers and, when necessary, service by the United States Marshals Service.

The court directed defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion no later than 91 days after the order was issued, unless they informed the court that the case could not be resolved by summary judgment. It set deadlines for Florence’s opposition and defendants’ reply, required the notices associated with a summary-judgment motion, and stated that no hearing would be held unless the court later ordered one.

The order also permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, required Florence to serve defendants or their counsel with communications sent to the court, reminded him that he was responsible for prosecuting the case, and warned that failure to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.