Sunnergren v. Bright

Background

Mark E. Sunnergren, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning medical care at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint with permission to amend. Sunnergren then filed a first amended complaint.

The first amended complaint named Darrin Bright, Kim Kumar, “Cantu,” “Gates,” and Doe defendants. Sunnergren alleged that he was treated with Gabapentin for seizures and nerve pain, and that Bright stopped the medication after prior disagreements and again in 2019. Sunnergren alleged that he suffered seizures and other injuries as a result. He also alleged that Bright refused an MRI for severe back pain, although a later hospital MRI showed severe disease throughout his spine. He claimed deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, retaliation for filing grievances, denial of due process, and violations of state and federal law.

Court’s analysis

The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a prisoner complaint. At this stage, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from an immune defendant, while construing a complaint filed without a lawyer liberally.

The court explained that an Eighth Amendment medical-care claim based on deliberate indifference requires allegations showing both a serious medical need and a defendant’s response that amounted to deliberate indifference. Assuming Sunnergren’s medical conditions qualified as serious medical needs, the court found sufficient allegations to support such a claim against Bright. The court found the allegations against Kumar insufficient because Kumar’s alleged assurance that Bright would no longer interfere with prescriptions did not show deliberate indifference. The complaint did not mention “Cantu” or “Gates” in its factual allegations and did not provide specific facts explaining how the Doe defendants participated in allegedly abusive medical treatment.

The court also found sufficient allegations for a retaliation claim against Bright based on alleged adverse actions taken because Sunnergren filed medical grievances, which allegedly discouraged the exercise of his free-speech rights. The retaliation allegations against the other named defendants were insufficient. The court further concluded that the allegations did not show a protected liberty interest was denied in violation of due process. Sunnergren’s general reference to violations of state law was also inadequate because he did not identify the specific state law involved.

Disposition

The court ordered that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. Sunnergren was given 28 days from the filing of the order to file a second amended complaint stating sufficient facts against each named defendant. The order explained that the second amended complaint would replace the original complaint and first amended complaint; claims and defendants not included in it would no longer be part of the action.

The court also stated that failure to respond as ordered would result in dismissal with prejudice of the claims against all other defendants, except Bright, for failure to state a claim, without further notice. If that occurred, the action would proceed solely against Bright on the Eighth Amendment and retaliation claims. Judge Beth Labson Freeman also directed the clerk to send Sunnergren two copies of the court’s complaint form with the order.