Dominguez v. Burke

Background

Joe Valdez Dominguez, an incarcerated person at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The court screened his original complaint under statutes governing lawsuits filed by incarcerated people and dismissed it with permission to amend because he had not identified what each defendant had done to harm him.

Dominguez’s first amended complaint alleged that three doctors were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when they did not perform gallbladder-removal surgery on March 16, 2020. He alleged that doctors working in the emergency room at Natividad Medical Center declined to perform the surgery because elective surgeries were being limited during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court found that those allegations showed no more than a difference of medical opinion and dismissed the first amended complaint with permission to amend again.

Dominguez then filed a motion asking the court to reconsider that screening order, a motion for additional time to file a second amended complaint, and the second amended complaint itself.

Claims in the Second Amended Complaint

The second amended complaint formally named only the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. But an exhibit identified prison medical staff and Drs. Quingo Sui, Duc Nguyen, Ryan Kim, Darrin Bright, and Kumar as responsible for his injuries. The court presumed that Dominguez intended to name those individuals as defendants and to allege that each participated in the asserted violations.

Dominguez alleged that defendants learned as early as 2017 that he had gallstones and needed surgery. He further alleged that, despite knowing surgery was necessary, defendants did not provide surgery after the COVID-19 pandemic began and provided no other treatment in 2018, 2019, or 2020. He alleged that the delay caused years of unnecessary pain and resulted in the loss of his gallbladder.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that deliberate indifference to an incarcerated person’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. To state such a claim, a prisoner must allege both a serious medical need and deliberate indifference by a defendant. Deliberate indifference requires that the official knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and failed to take reasonable steps to reduce that risk.

The court concluded that Dominguez adequately alleged both parts of the claim. His alleged need to have gallstones removed was a serious medical need. He also alleged that defendants knew about that need, knew surgery was required, and failed to provide the required treatment for four years. The court therefore concluded that the second amended complaint stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims.

Rulings and Case Management

The court ordered service on Dr. Quingo Sui, Dr. Duc Nguyen, Dr. Ryan Kim, Dr. Darrin Bright, and Dr. Kumar. Service was to proceed through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program, with the California Attorney General’s Office and, if necessary, the United States Marshals Service handling subsequent service steps.

Because the second amended complaint stated cognizable claims, the court denied the reconsideration motion as moot. It granted the extension motion nunc pro tunc, meaning retroactively. The court also set deadlines for defendants’ summary-judgment or other dispositive motion, Dominguez’s opposition, and defendants’ reply; authorized discovery; and warned Dominguez about his obligations to serve filings, prosecute the case, and keep the court informed of address changes. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 19 and 21.

Disposition

This was a screening and service order, not a final decision on whether Dominguez will ultimately prevail. The court allowed the Eighth Amendment claims to proceed, denied reconsideration as moot, and granted the extension motion nunc pro tunc.