Guevara v. Richardson

Background

Michael Guevara alleged that, on April 30, 2022, at the San Mateo County Jail, Sergeant D. Richardson ordered him to his cell and then said in front of Guevara’s housing unit, “And I don’t want to hear about your heart problems.” Guevara alleged that Richardson’s disclosure of his private medical information violated his right to privacy. The complaint was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows a person to sue someone acting under state law for violating rights protected by the Constitution or federal law.

Initial screening

Because Guevara was a prisoner seeking relief from a government officer, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This screening requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek relief from an immune defendant. The court stated that self-represented complaints must be read liberally.

The court concluded that, when liberally construed, Guevara stated a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment privacy claim against Richardson. “Cognizable” here means that the claim was legally sufficient to proceed past the initial screening stage. The order did not resolve the ultimate merits of the privacy claim.

Orders and deadlines

The court ordered service of the complaint and its attachments on Richardson and directed him to respond to the cognizable claims. By April 10, 2023, Richardson had to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion, meaning a motion seeking to resolve the case, or notify the court that summary judgment was not appropriate.

The order specified that any exhaustion defense based on Guevara’s failure to use available administrative remedies had to be raised through a summary-judgment motion. It also stated that a summary-judgment motion had to comply with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and be supported by adequate factual documentation. Guevara’s opposition would be due 45 days after the motion was filed, and Richardson’s reply would be due 15 days after the opposition.

The court allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and instructed Guevara to serve copies of his communications with the court on Richardson or Richardson’s lawyer. Guevara was told that he was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of any address change, and complying with court orders. The court stated that failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Richardson was also required to provide a required notice explaining how Guevara should oppose a summary-judgment motion when such a motion was filed.