Ramirez v. Monterey County Jail and Mental Health
- Alex Tse
- 3:22-cv-07239
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Ramirez v. Delfino, Judge Tse denied Dr. Francisco’s motion to dismiss Ramirez’s deliberate-indifference claim over a jail medication change.
Jeff Goeral Ramirez’s deliberate-indifference claim against Dr. Paul Francisco was allowed to remain pending at the pleading stage; Dr. Francisco’s motion to dismiss was denied.
What happened
In Ramirez v. Delfino, Jeff Goeral Ramirez alleged that Dr. Paul Francisco acted with disregard for his medical needs by stopping Seroquel, which Ramirez had been prescribed before entering jail.
Ramirez alleged that Dr. Francisco substituted an unidentified medication, which did not work. He said he then hallucinated, yelled uncontrollably, removed his clothing, and had an altercation with guards that led to an emergency-room visit.
The court found the claim plausible and denied Dr. Francisco’s motion to dismiss. Judge Alex G. Tse said any legitimate reasons for changing the medication could be presented after the pleading stage.
The detailed version
- Ramirez v. Monterey County Jail and Mental Health · No. 3:22-cv-07239
- Alex Tse
- May 16, 2023
Background
Jeff Goeral Ramirez brought a deliberate-indifference claim against Dr. Paul Francisco. The opinion says Ramirez had been prescribed Seroquel outside of jail and that Dr. Francisco discontinued its use after Ramirez entered jail.
Dr. Francisco gave Ramirez a different medication, which the opinion says was not identified. Ramirez alleged that the substitute did not work. He allegedly hallucinated in his cell, began yelling uncontrollably, removed all his clothes, and had an altercation with prison guards that resulted in his being taken to an emergency room.
Court’s Analysis
To state a deliberate-indifference claim, Ramirez had to plausibly allege that Dr. Francisco acted with reckless disregard for his medical needs. The court concluded that the allegations met that standard, at least at the pleading stage. The court acknowledged that Dr. Francisco might have had legitimate reasons for changing the medication, but said those reasons would be better presented and considered after the pleading stage.
Disposition
The court did not dismiss Ramirez’s deliberate-indifference claim. It denied Dr. Francisco’s motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.