Adom v. CDCR

Background

Bilal Adom, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed this civil-rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials for alleged violations at Salinas Valley State Prison. He had paid the filing fee.

Adom alleged that he has incontinence and other medical conditions, and that defendants denied him or provided too few supplies to address the incontinence. He also alleged that Dr. Monte Grande deliberately and unnecessarily hurt him during an examination and that Dr. Lotersztain knowingly performed an unnecessary prostate examination.

Screening and Claims

The court conducted the preliminary review required for prisoner cases seeking relief from a governmental entity or its employees. At this stage, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or barred because the defendant is immune from monetary relief. The court also applied the rule that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state authority.

The court concluded that, when read liberally, Adom’s allegations stated claims under the Eighth Amendment against Warden M. Atcherly, Chief Medical Officer S. Sawyer, A.D.A. Coordinator R. Mojica, Dr. Monte Grande, Dr. Scott Ladd, and Dr. Lotersztain. The court also found a cognizable claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for allegedly failing to provide adequate incontinence supplies.

The court concluded that damages claims against the department under the Eighth Amendment were not cognizable because the Eleventh Amendment gives the department immunity from those claims. It further concluded that Adom’s allegations about Nurse Bianca Rubio—that she said she was not authorized to provide incontinence supplies, told him whom to ask, and moved him to a room at Dr. Grande’s request—did not state an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to medical needs.

Disposition and Case Management

The court dismissed Adom’s Eighth Amendment claim against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation because it failed to state a claim. It also dismissed all claims against Bianca Rubio for the same reason. The order did not dismiss the Americans with Disabilities Act claim against the department or the Eighth Amendment claims against the six individual defendants.

The court ordered service on Warden M. Atcherly, Chief Medical Officer S. Sawyer, A.D.A. Coordinator R. Mojica, Dr. Monte Grande, Dr. Scott Ladd, and Dr. Lotersztain at Salinas Valley State Prison, and ordered the department served in Sacramento. The court directed service through the department’s electronic-service program and set procedures for service waivers and service by the United States Marshals Service when necessary.

The defendants must file an answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The remaining defendants must file a motion for summary judgment or another motion resolving the case no later than 91 days after the order was filed, unless they notify the court that summary judgment is not appropriate. Adom’s opposition would be due 28 days after service of such a motion, and any reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The court allowed discovery without another order under the cited discovery rules.

The order also required Adom to serve copies of his communications with the court on the defendants or their counsel, obtain medical and central-file materials directly from prison officials rather than the court, prosecute the case, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders. Judge Jeffrey S. White signed the order on March 1, 2023.