Mackey v. Cook

Background

Vincent Robert Mackey, identified as a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at San Quentin State Prison. The court stated that Mackey had been granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.

Screening standard

The court explained that federal law requires an initial review of prisoner complaints seeking relief from a government entity or employee. The court must identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. Because Mackey was not represented by a lawyer, the court said it would read his allegations liberally.

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law and that the violation was committed by someone acting under state authority.

Claims found sufficient for service

The court found that Mackey’s allegations stated a claim that medical and administrative grievance staff were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The defendants identified for this claim were Dr. Aaron Cook, Dr. Ramirez Batile, Dr. Wu, N. Podolski, M. Verdier, T. Woodson, and S. Gates.

The court also found that Mackey’s allegations stated claims against supervisory defendants Warden Robert Broomfield and Chief Medical Officer Allison Pachynski. Those allegations concerned inadequate training or supervision and policies that allegedly failed to ensure adequate medical treatment. The court described these claims as cognizable, meaning legally sufficient to proceed past the initial screening stage.

Order

The court ordered Broomfield, Pachynski, Cook, Batile, Wu, Podolski, Verdier, Woodson, and Gates to be served at San Quentin State Prison. The order established procedures for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to report whether defendants would waive service and for the United States Marshals Service to serve defendants who did not waive service.

The court ordered defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion no later than 91 days after the order was issued, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. The order allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, required the parties to serve their court filings on one another, and reminded Mackey that he was responsible for prosecuting the case and keeping the court informed of any address change.

The opinion ordered service and allowed the identified claims to proceed beyond screening. It did not decide whether Mackey would ultimately win those claims.