Larry Wyane Palsey, Jr. v. Pat Horn, et al.

Summary

The document contains findings and recommendations from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in a prisoner civil-rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim, while granting leave to amend. The recommendation addresses official-capacity claims, supervisory liability, alleged medical deliberate indifference, and related state-law claims.

Holdings

1. Claims against the defendants in their official capacities seeking monetary damages are treated as claims against the State and are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
2. The complaint failed to state a claim against Warden Horn because it alleged liability solely based on his supervisory position and did not allege personal participation, direction, knowledge, or failure to prevent a constitutional violation.
3. The complaint failed to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Ho or Freeman because it lacked specific facts showing their knowledge of and disregard for a substantial risk of serious harm and instead alleged conclusions, delay, misdiagnosis, or possible malpractice.
4. At the screening stage, Plaintiff's allegation that Freeman was a contracted physician providing medical care for CDCR was sufficient to treat Freeman as a state actor for purposes of § 1983.
5. The state-law claims were subject to dismissal because the complaint did not allege compliance with the California Government Claims Act's presentment and exhaustion requirements.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
2. Whether the official-capacity claims for monetary damages were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
3. Whether the complaint adequately alleged personal participation or supervisory liability by Warden Pat Horn under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
4. Whether the allegations against Ho and Freeman plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim concerning medical care.
5. Whether the asserted state-law medical-malpractice claims were subject to dismissal for failure to allege compliance with California's Government Claims Act.

Disposition

other