Dao v. Gibbs
- Edward Davila
- 5:23-cv-05756
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Dao v. Gibbs, Judge Davila allowed Cuong Huy Dao’s medical-care claims past screening and ordered service on four defendants.
Cuong Huy Dao’s claims against C. Vanhorn, A. Gibbs, E. Aumine, and E. Hassman were allowed to proceed past preliminary screening, and those four defendants were ordered to be served and respond through dispositive motion practice.
What happened
In Dao v. Gibbs, Cuong Huy Dao, a state prisoner representing himself, sued medical staff at Pelican Bay State Prison under a federal civil-rights law.
Dao alleged that C. Vanhorn, A. Gibbs, Nurse E. Aumine, and Nurse E. Hassman provided inadequate post-surgical care for his eyes, causing further injury and unnecessary pain. The court found that these allegations were sufficient to proceed with claims that the defendants knowingly disregarded serious medical needs.
Judge Edward J. Davila ordered the four defendants to be served and directed them to file a motion for summary judgment or another case-ending motion. The order did not decide whether the defendants are liable, and Dao’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee was left for a separate order.
The detailed version
- Dao v. Gibbs · No. 5:23-cv-05756
- Edward Davila
- Mar. 12, 2024
Background
Cuong Huy Dao, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical staff at Pelican Bay State Prison, where he had previously been housed. The court stated that it would address Dao’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.
Claims and Screening
Because Dao is a prisoner suing governmental employees, the court conducted the required preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires allegations that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by a person acting under state authority.
Dao alleged that C. Vanhorn and A. Gibbs, psychiatric technicians, and Nurse E. Aumine and Nurse E. Hassman violated his Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment through the post-surgical treatment they provided for his eyes. He alleged that their actions caused additional eye injury and unnecessary pain and sought damages, including punitive damages. Construing his self-represented complaint liberally, the court found that the allegations were sufficient to state claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
Order
The court ordered that C. Vanhorn, A. Gibbs, E. Aumine, and E. Hassman be served. It directed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to report within 40 days which defendants would waive service and directed the California Attorney General’s Office to file waivers for those defendants who agreed to waive service. Defendants who did not waive service were to be served through the United States Marshals Service.
The court also ordered defendants, within 91 days after the order was filed, to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion addressing the claims found cognizable. Dao was given 28 days to oppose such a motion, and defendants were given 14 days to reply. The court stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and gave additional instructions about communications, prosecuting the case, address changes, and requests for extensions.
This order allowed the claims to proceed beyond preliminary screening; it did not decide the ultimate merits or liability of any defendant.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.