Smith v. Schuyler

Background

Larry Smith, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued three officials at Salinas Valley State Prison and two doctors at Natividad Hospital. Smith alleged that he had an infection, abscess, and disc injury in his back; that Dr. Singh sent him to the hospital for a biopsy and intravenous antibiotics; and that Dr. Bergen and Dr. Patberg were involved in decisions about his pain medication and hospital treatment. Smith moved for a temporary restraining order and appointment of counsel. The court separately granted permission for him to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Screening of the claims

The court conducted the preliminary review required for prisoner complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. It concluded that, when read liberally, Smith’s allegations stated claims that could be heard against Dr. Singh, Dr. Bergen, and Dr. Patberg for violating the Eighth Amendment. Those claims remained in the case, and the court ordered service of the complaint on those defendants.

The court dismissed the claims against Warden C. Schuyler and Chief Medical Officer Dr. Bright. Smith alleged no conduct by either defendant and relied only on their supervisory job positions. The court stated that being in charge of the prison or medical department was not, by itself, enough to impose liability for alleged violations by subordinates.

Temporary restraining order

The court denied Smith’s motion for a temporary restraining order without prejudice. Smith had not stated that he notified the defendants of the motion and had not submitted the written certification required when seeking an order without notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). The court stated that Smith could file a renewed motion if he complied with that rule.

Appointment of counsel

The court denied Smith’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice. It explained that there is no general right to appointed counsel in a civil case and that counsel is requested for an unrepresented litigant only in exceptional circumstances. The court found that Smith had not shown he was unable to present or litigate his claims and that the issues were not sufficiently complex at that stage to require referral for volunteer counsel. The court also stated that it could issue a referral later if necessary.

Procedural directions and result

The court ordered service on Dr. Singh at Salinas Valley State Prison and on Dr. Kathryn Bergen and Dr. Jonathan Patberg at Natividad Hospital. It directed the defendants to file an answer and, by October 1, 2023, a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. It set October 29, 2023, for Smith’s opposition and November 13, 2023, for the defendants’ reply. The order also addressed discovery, communications, address updates, and Smith’s responsibility to prosecute the case.

The order dismissed the claims against C. Schuyler and Dr. Bright, kept the claims against Dr. Singh, Dr. Bergen, and Dr. Patberg, and denied both the temporary-restraining-order motion and the appointment-of-counsel motion without prejudice. It did not decide the merits of the remaining Eighth Amendment claims.