Bustamonte v. Castillon

Background

Israel Bustamonte, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Correctional Officer T. Castillon and medical staff at Salinas Valley State Prison. He alleged that during a September 28, 2021 inmate riot or melee, he was complying with an order to get down when Castillon deliberately shot him in the face with a rubber bullet. He alleged that the injury caused fractures, bruising, and a laceration.

Bustamonte also alleged that Nurses Bermudez, Ssempebwa, Montegrande, Le, and Muriith, and Dr. Michael Moller, were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. He said he experienced severe pain and other symptoms, could not eat regular food, did not receive the ordered soft-food diet, and never received the surgery he says was needed.

Screening Ruling

Because Bustamonte is a prisoner seeking relief from government employees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court found that his allegations were sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Castillon. The court also found that, when read generously, the allegations were sufficient to state deliberate-indifference claims against Ssempebwa, Le, Montegrande, Muriith, and Moller based on their alleged knowledge of his severe pain and inability to eat and their alleged failure to take reasonable steps to address the risk of harm.

The court found the deliberate-indifference allegations against Bermudez and Johnson insufficient. As to Bermudez, the complaint alleged only that she was one of the nurses who initially arrived and had Bustamonte taken to the prison’s Critical Treatment Center. As to Johnson, the complaint listed her as a responsible medical staff member but included no specific allegations describing her involvement in Bustamonte’s care. The court granted Bustamonte leave to amend to try to state adequate claims against those two defendants.

Other Deficiencies and Instructions

The court also directed Bustamonte to identify the specific injunctive relief he sought and to clarify whether he was suing the defendants in their official capacities, individual capacities, or both. The court stated that money-damages claims against defendants in their official capacities would be subject to dismissal. It did not enter that dismissal in this order.

Bustamonte could file an amended complaint by January 31, 2023. The court explained that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint, so claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the case. The court warned that if he did not timely amend, or if the amended complaint did not correct the identified defects, it might reassign the case to a district judge with a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed in whole or in part for failure to state a cognizable claim. The court’s order screened the pleadings and granted leave to amend; it was not a final merits decision.