Smith v. Schuyler

Background

Larry Smith, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute provides a way to sue a person acting under state authority for violating a right protected by the Constitution or federal law.

The court had previously dismissed the claims against C. Schuyler and Dr. Bright and ordered service on Dr. Singh and Dr. Bergen based on claims in the original complaint that could be heard and decided by a court. Smith later received permission to amend. His amended complaint completely replaced the original complaint, added Dr. Sevaq Kalinjian and Dr. Doherty, and alleged that they failed to adequately treat and diagnose his back pain in the fall of 2022 and 2023. The amended complaint continued to name Dr. Singh and Dr. Bergen but did not name Dr. Patberg.

Screening and Claims

Because Smith is a prisoner suing governmental actors, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening is the court’s preliminary review to determine whether a prisoner’s complaint states a legally recognizable claim. The court applied the requirement that a complaint contain enough factual allegations to make relief plausible, while construing an unrepresented prisoner’s allegations liberally.

The court concluded that the allegations against Dr. Kalinjian and Dr. Doherty, liberally construed, stated claims capable of judicial determination for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The opinion also states that the amended complaint continued to state Eighth Amendment claims involving serious medical needs, but the provided text does not fully identify the allegations in that sentence.

Rulings and Schedule

The court ordered the amended complaint served on Dr. Kalinjian and Dr. Doherty. It dismissed the claims against Dr. Patberg because the amended complaint replaced the original complaint and did not include him as a defendant. The order does not state that this dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The court also granted Dr. Singh’s motion to extend the time to file a dispositive motion. A dispositive motion is a motion that could resolve the case or a claim without a trial. The court set January 4, 2024, as the deadline for defendants to file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion; February 1, 2024, for Smith’s opposition; and February 15, 2024, for defendants’ reply. The order states that no hearing would be held unless the court later ordered one.

Judge Jacquelyn Corley signed the order on October 5, 2023. This order addressed screening, service, dismissal of one defendant, an extension of time, and scheduling; it did not decide the ultimate merits of the remaining claims.