Nevarez v. Napa State Hospital
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:23-cv-04430
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Angel V. Nevarez v. Napa State Hospital, Judge Gilliam dismissed the hospital with prejudice and dismissed the remaining claims with leave to amend.
Angel V. Nevarez must address the pleading, joinder, and exhaustion issues in an amended complaint within 28 days. Napa State Hospital was dismissed from the action with prejudice; the claims against the remaining defendants were dismissed with leave to amend.
What happened
In Angel V. Nevarez v. Napa State Hospital, Angel V. Nevarez, representing himself, sued Napa State Hospital and two psych technicians under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged denial of medical care, interference with religious practice, and physical abuse involving a razor.
The court dismissed Napa State Hospital with prejudice because it is a state agency, not a person that can be sued under that law. It dismissed the rest of the complaint with leave to amend because the medical-care claim did not identify a responsible defendant, the claims involved separate incidents and defendants, and Nevarez appeared not to have completed the required administrative process.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. gave Nevarez 28 days to file an amended complaint addressing these problems. The order stated that failure to amend on time would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.
The detailed version
- Nevarez v. Napa State Hospital · No. 4:23-cv-04430
- Haywood Gilliam
- Feb. 15, 2024
Background
Angel V. Nevarez filed this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Nevarez had also been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.
The complaint named Napa State Hospital and psych technicians identified in the opinion as Emilion and Angel. It asserted three groups of allegations:
- Nevarez alleged that his medical boot was taken when he arrived at Napa State Hospital and that he did not receive medical care for a torn Achilles. He did not connect this claim to a specific defendant.
- He alleged that a psych technician ordered him to stop talking about the Bible after Nevarez responded to another patient who had called him a hypocrite.
- He alleged that psych technician Angel and other staff wrestled a razor away from him after he said he intended to use the next available sink to shave, injuring him in the process.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a constitutional or federal right by a person acting under state authority. It held that Napa State Hospital is a state agency and therefore is not a suable “person” under § 1983. The court dismissed Napa State Hospital from the action with prejudice.
The court also identified pleading and case-organization problems. The medical-care allegations did not identify an individual responsible for the alleged denial of care. In addition, the three sets of allegations involved different incidents and different officials, so they did not satisfy the federal rule allowing defendants to be joined in one action only when the claims arise from the same transaction or series of transactions and share a common legal or factual question.
The court further stated that Nevarez appeared not to have exhausted available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. On the complaint form, he indicated that administrative remedies were available but that he had not pursued relief through the highest level. The court cautioned that this exhaustion requirement is mandatory and that failure to exhaust can result in dismissal.
Ruling
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. dismissed Napa State Hospital from the action with prejudice and dismissed the remainder of the complaint with leave to amend. The court ordered Nevarez to file an amended complaint within 28 days addressing the identified deficiencies. The amended complaint had to use the case caption and number stated in the order, include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, answer all questions if a court form was used, include all defendants and claims he wished to pursue, and not incorporate the earlier complaint by reference. The court stated that failure to file a compliant amended complaint within the deadline would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.