Fletcher v. Achtley

Background

Brian Ray Fletcher, a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison, brought a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to respond to requests concerning his living conditions, medical services, and COVID-19 safety. The opinion states that Fletcher has asthma and kidney disease and that he sought medical services because of those conditions.

The court previously found Fletcher’s claims concerning T. Lemon and R. Gamboa cognizable and issued an order for service. Fletcher then moved to file a second amended complaint. In that complaint, he named Lemon, Gamboa, S. Gates, and G.R. Padilla and alleged that they failed to act on requests for medical services and a complaint about COVID-19 safety in his housing unit.

Screening and Claims Allowed to Proceed

Because Fletcher sought relief from governmental officials while incarcerated, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court determines whether the pleading states a claim that may proceed; it does not enter a final decision on whether the alleged violations occurred.

The court concluded that, when read liberally, the second amended complaint stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Lemon, Gamboa, Gates, and Padilla. The court dismissed all other claims and defendants. It specifically dismissed without prejudice Fletcher’s claims against different defendants concerning COVID-19 safety at his kitchen job, stating that those claims could be raised in a separate civil-rights action because they did not meet the federal rules governing joinder of claims and defendants.

Orders

The court granted Fletcher’s motion to file a second amended complaint and stated that no further amended complaints would be allowed or entertained. It ordered service of the second amended complaint on Lemon, Gamboa, Gates, and Padilla through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program, with United States Marshals Service procedures for any defendant who did not waive service.

The defendants were ordered to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion addressing the cognizable claims by March 20, 2023. The order provided deadlines for Fletcher’s opposition and the defendants’ reply and included the required notice explaining how Fletcher must respond to a summary-judgment motion. It also stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions.