Hartley v. Bright

Background

Roger Andrew Hartley, an incarcerated person representing himself, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a required screening process for a prisoner’s lawsuit seeking relief from a government entity or government officer or employee.

Hartley alleged that, while he was incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, he suffered severe neuropathic pain in his back, legs, and feet. He claimed that he was denied his preferred pain medication, medical tests, and a special mattress. He alleged that Dr. Bright, the prison’s Chief Physician and Surgeon, denied the mattress in retaliation. The complaint sought damages and injunctive or other equitable relief.

Hartley named Dr. Bright; Dr. Kumar; Warden Allen; unidentified doctors and appeals coordinators; Salinas Valley State Prison; Dr. Bick; California Correctional Health Care Services; Kathleen Allison; and additional unidentified defendants.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Hartley’s request for injunctive relief was moot because he was no longer incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court stated that the California Institution for Men, where Hartley was then incarcerated, was outside the Northern District of California’s jurisdiction. The court said that Hartley would have to seek an order for specific medical treatment in the federal court covering that institution.

As to Salinas Valley State Prison and California Correctional Health Care Services, the court explained that liability under the legal theories asserted required Hartley to show a constitutional right, a government policy, deliberate indifference to that right, and that the policy caused the constitutional violation. The court found that Hartley had not alleged that the denial of his preferred medical care resulted from an official policy or provided facts showing a commonly followed practice. The court allowed him to include such facts in an amended complaint if they existed.

The court found that the claims against Dr. Kumar, Warden Allen, Dr. Bick, and Secretary Allison failed because Hartley did not identify any action by those defendants that harmed him. The court explained that § 1983 does not impose liability merely because a person holds a supervisory position or because another person allegedly committed a violation. Hartley could attempt to amend by identifying an action each defendant took that caused his injury.

The court also found that Hartley had not stated a cognizable retaliation claim against Dr. Bright because he did not identify the protected conduct involved or explain the connection between that conduct and Dr. Bright’s actions. A prison-retaliation claim requires, among other things, adverse action because of protected conduct and an effect on the prisoner’s exercise of First Amendment rights.

The court further held that Hartley had not alleged facts showing that Dr. Bright was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. The complaint and attached medical record showed that Dr. Bright provided some treatment, including acetaminophen and topical capsaicin. The court characterized the allegations as appearing to show a difference of opinion about medical treatment, which does not establish deliberate indifference. The court stated that Hartley might correct this defect by alleging that Dr. Bright’s chosen treatment was medically unacceptable and was selected with conscious disregard of an excessive risk to Hartley’s health.

The court noted that claims against unidentified defendants are disfavored in the Ninth Circuit but said identifying those defendants in an amended complaint would help move the case forward.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action with leave to amend only as to Hartley’s claims for damages. It dismissed the request for equitable relief without leave to amend. Hartley could file a first amended complaint within thirty-five days after the order was filed. The court warned that failure to file a proper amended complaint could result in dismissal of the action and that failure to prosecute could also result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).