Joseph v. Montegrande
- 5:22-cv-03576
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
Joseph v. Montegrande: the court allowed Alonzo Joseph’s hepatitis C medical-care claim to proceed and ordered service on Faye Montegrande.
Alonzo Joseph’s Eighth Amendment medical-care claim against Faye Montegrande was allowed to proceed past prisoner screening; Montegrande was ordered to be served, and Joseph’s alternative-dispute-resolution requests were denied as premature.
What happened
In Joseph v. Montegrande, Alonzo Joseph, a state prisoner representing himself, alleged that Faye Montegrande failed to provide or arrange treatment for his hepatitis C. The court screened his amended complaint under the prisoner-screening law.
The court found that Joseph had adequately alleged that Montegrande knew about his hepatitis C and that he had not received treatment. It recognized a claim that Montegrande was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment, while leaving the treatment-priority issue for a later stage.
The court ordered service of the amended complaint on Montegrande and denied Joseph’s requests for alternative dispute resolution as premature. The court also set procedures for responding to the case, discovery, and future motions. The opinion does not clearly identify the judge by name.
The detailed version
- Joseph v. Montegrande · No. 5:22-cv-03576
- June 2, 2023
Background
Alonzo Joseph, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning his medical care. The court had previously dismissed some defendants and claims with prejudice and gave Joseph an opportunity to amend his allegations concerning Faye Montegrande’s alleged failure to treat his hepatitis C. Joseph filed a First Amended Complaint, which the court reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the statute requiring preliminary screening of prisoner lawsuits against governmental entities or personnel.
Screening and Claim
Joseph alleged that Montegrande ordered laboratory tests that were collected on October 11, 2021, and showed that Joseph had hepatitis C. He alleged that Montegrande did not refer him for treatment or suggest treatment, that he experienced severe pain and suffering including gastroenteritis and cirrhosis, and that Montegrande continued to refuse to see him or refer him to a hepatitis C doctor. Joseph sought an order requiring treatment.
The court found that Joseph adequately alleged that Montegrande knew he had hepatitis C and was seeking treatment but that he had not received it. The court stated that whether California Correctional Health Care Services’ treatment-prioritization and exclusion criteria shielded Montegrande from liability would be decided at a later stage. Construing Joseph’s allegations liberally, the court held that he stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Montegrande for deliberate indifference to his medical needs.
Orders
The court ordered service on Montegrande through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. It directed the clerk and the Department to process service and any waiver of service, with the United States Marshals Service to serve Montegrande if service was not waived.
The court denied Joseph’s requests for alternative dispute resolution as premature because Montegrande had not yet been served. It set deadlines and procedures for an answer, dispositive motions, opposition and reply briefs, discovery, communications with the court, address changes, and requests for extensions. The order did not finally decide whether Montegrande was liable for the alleged failure to provide hepatitis C treatment. The judge’s name is not clearly legible in the provided opinion text.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.