Kramer v. Peres
- William Orrick
- 3:22-cv-03803
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Andrew Kramer v. Pachyinski, Judge Orrick screened the prisoner’s complaint, allowed claims against Dr. Pachyinski to proceed, and dismissed all other defendants and claims.
Andrew Kramer’s claims against Dr. Pachyinski continue past initial screening, while the claims against Warden Ron Broomfield, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the other defendants were dismissed or terminated. Dr. Pachyinski was ordered to respond to the cognizable claims.
What happened
In Andrew Kramer v. Pachyinski, Andrew Kramer alleged that a physician at San Quentin violated his constitutional and statutory rights by failing to provide adequate medical care and reasonable accommodations. The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-complaint screening law.
The court found cognizable claims against Dr. Pachyinski under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. It dismissed the claims against Warden Ron Broomfield and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, terminated the other defendants, ordered service on Dr. Pachyinski, and directed that defendant to file a potentially case-ending motion or notice by March 6, 2023.
Judge Orrick issued the December 7, 2022 order, which began the case against Dr. Pachyinski but did not decide whether Kramer would ultimately win those claims.
The detailed version
- Kramer v. Peres · No. 3:22-cv-03803
- William Orrick
- Dec. 7, 2022
Background
Andrew Kramer, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that a physician at San Quentin violated his constitutional and statutory rights. The complaint alleged inadequate medical care and a failure to provide reasonable accommodations. Kramer asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The opinion also notes that the complaint named Dr. Peres as a defendant.
Screening and rulings
The court conducted preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This screening requires the court to identify claims that are legally sufficient and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant.
The court held that Kramer had stated cognizable claims against Dr. Pachyinski, identified as the Chief Medical Executive at San Quentin State Prison. Those claims were allowed to proceed.
The court dismissed Kramer’s claims against Warden Ron Broomfield. It explained that a supervisor is not automatically liable under Section 1983 for an employee’s conduct and that Kramer’s allegations did not plausibly show that Broomfield participated in, directed, or knowingly failed to prevent the alleged violations.
The court also dismissed Kramer’s claims against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. It held that a state agency is not a “person” that can be sued under Section 1983.
Orders for the next stage
The court ordered service of the complaint and attachments on Dr. Pachyinski through the prison system’s electronic service process. It directed the defendant to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion—a motion that could resolve the claims—by March 6, 2023. The order set deadlines for Kramer’s opposition and the defendant’s reply, authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and provided instructions concerning service, records, communications, and extensions of time.
The order did not decide the ultimate merits of the claims allowed to proceed. It stated that all other defendants were terminated and that the claims against them were dismissed.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.