Brown v. Nguyen
- William Orrick
- 3:23-cv-00593
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Brown v. Nguyen, Judge Orrick allowed one prisoner medical-care claim to proceed, dismissed other claims, and denied Brown’s protective-order motion.
Gregory L. Brown’s case continued against Dr. Nguyen on the alleged medical-care violation. The other named defendants were terminated, with different dismissal terms stated in the order, and Brown’s protective-order motion was denied.
What happened
In Brown v. Nguyen, Gregory L. Brown alleged that Dr. Nguyen was deliberately indifferent to his serious back problems while Brown was at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court screened the complaint under a law requiring early review of prisoner claims against government officials.
The court found that Brown stated a possible Eighth Amendment medical-care claim against Nguyen. It dismissed claims against grievance reviewers and supervisors, dismissed claims arising from an earlier incident in the Eastern District without prejudice to filing a separate action there, and dismissed claims involving a cellmate assignment and related grievance reviews. The court also denied Brown’s motion to protect evidence related to the earlier incident.
Judge William H. Orrick ordered service of the complaint on Nguyen and directed Nguyen to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion by September 11, 2023. Nguyen was the only remaining defendant, so the case continued only on Brown’s medical-care claim.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Nguyen · No. 3:23-cv-00593
- William Orrick
- June 7, 2023
Background
Gregory L. Brown alleged that, beginning in December 2021, Dr. Nguyen, a physician at Salinas Valley State Prison, was deliberately indifferent to Brown’s serious back problems. The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires screening of a prisoner’s complaint against a governmental entity or officer. The court explained that screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant.
Claims and screening ruling
The court held that Brown stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Dr. Nguyen. A cognizable claim is one that may proceed because the allegations are legally sufficient at the screening stage; the court did not decide the ultimate merits of that claim.
The court dismissed Brown’s claims against the people who reviewed his grievances about Nguyen: Sawyer, Gates, Atchley, Eldridge, and Allen. It explained that merely reviewing an inmate’s grievance or holding a supervisory position does not by itself establish responsibility for the alleged constitutional violation.
The court dismissed without prejudice the claims concerning an April 2020 excessive-force incident at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton, involving Vang, Michels, Williams, and Navarro. The order stated that Brown could raise those claims in a separate civil-rights action in the Eastern District of California.
The court dismissed Brown’s claims against correctional officer Schlig concerning the July 18, 2021 cellmate assignment. It also dismissed claims against Lomeli, Ruiz, Howard, Atchley, and Allen concerning review of Brown’s grievances against Schlig. The order stated that the allegations did not state a claim for relief.
Protective-order motion
Brown moved for an order protecting evidence related to the California Health Care Facility incident. The court denied that motion because the claims related to that incident had been dismissed. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion on the docket.
Case status and next steps ordered by the court
The court ordered service of the complaint and attachments on Dr. Nguyen and directed Nguyen to respond to the remaining claim. Nguyen was ordered to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion by September 11, 2023, or to notify the court if the case could not be resolved through summary judgment. The order also set deadlines for Brown’s opposition and Nguyen’s reply, authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and provided instructions concerning service, communications, records, extensions, and prosecution of the case.
The Clerk was directed to terminate all defendants except Nguyen. The claims against the terminated defendants were dismissed as specified in the order: the claims against Vang, Michels, Williams, and Navarro were dismissed without prejudice to a separate action in the Eastern District, while the claims against Schlig, Lomeli, Ruiz, Howard, Atchley, and Allen were dismissed. Brown’s protective-order motion was denied. Judge William H. Orrick signed the order on June 7, 2023.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.