Walker v. Osha
- Edward Davila
- 5:22-cv-07651
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Walker v. Osha, Judge Davila dismissed all other claims with prejudice, while allowing excessive-force and medical-care claims against Osha to proceed.
Jeffrey Walker, Defendant Osha, and the other defendants and claims named in the complaint. The case continues only against Osha on the excessive-force and deliberate-indifference claims.
What happened
Walker v. Osha is a civil-rights case brought by Jeffrey Walker, who identified himself as a civil detainee and represented himself. He sued officers at San Francisco County Jail #2 under a federal civil-rights law.
The court had previously found that Walker stated claims against Officer Osha for excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Walker did not respond to the court’s order requiring him to choose which claims and defendants to pursue.
Judge Edward J. Davila ordered the case to proceed only on those two claims against Osha and dismissed all other claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court also ordered service on Osha and directed the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another motion seeking to end the case.
The detailed version
- Walker v. Osha · No. 5:22-cv-07651
- Edward Davila
- June 1, 2023
Background
Jeffrey Walker, a civil detainee who was proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers at San Francisco County Jail #2. The complaint alleged that, while Walker was leaving his cell on January 27, 2022, to receive medical treatment for chest pain, Defendant Osha struck him in the area where he was experiencing severe pain, slammed the cell door as he fell, and then ignored his need for medical care. Walker was later taken to a hospital.
The court’s earlier screening order found that these allegations stated potentially valid claims against Osha for excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The court explained that, because Walker claimed to be detained under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act, his claims concerning treatment during civil confinement were considered under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth Amendment. The court also found that Walker’s other claims either failed to state a claim for relief or were improperly joined with the claims against Osha.
Failure to Elect Claims
The court had directed Walker to file a notice choosing which claims to pursue. The deadline passed, and Walker filed no response. Under the earlier order, the case therefore proceeded only on the claims against Osha, with the other claims and defendants subject to dismissal.
Court’s Ruling
The court ordered that the action proceed solely on Walker’s Fourteenth Amendment claims for excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendant Osha. It dismissed all other claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief and directed the clerk to terminate the other defendants from the action.
The clerk was ordered to serve Osha with the lawsuit materials. The defendants were directed to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion concerning the claims found cognizable within 91 days after the order was filed. The order also set deadlines for Walker’s opposition and the defendants’ reply and allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.