Vargas v. Santa Clara County Office of Sheriff Custody, et al.

Summary

The court screens a pro se prisoner’s amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court allows claims to proceed against Deputy Stock for allegedly requiring plaintiff to use van steps after testicular surgery and against Nurse Javier Bambi for alleged unwanted sexual contact. All other defendants and claims are dismissed without prejudice, subject to plaintiff’s ability to file a second amended complaint.

Holdings

1. A pretrial detainee states a Fourteenth Amendment medical-care claim against an individual defendant by alleging that the defendant intentionally made a decision concerning the conditions of confinement, those conditions created a substantial risk of serious harm, the defendant failed to take objectively reasonable available measures to abate the risk despite the obviousness of the risk, and that failure caused injury. Liberally construed, plaintiff stated such a claim against Deputy Stock based on requiring him to climb vehicle steps after surgery.
2. Allegations of sexual harassment and unwanted sexual contact by a government official may state a Fourteenth Amendment substantive-due-process claim when the conduct is sufficiently egregious and outrageous to shock the contemporary conscience, and may also state a claim based on punishment when the conduct significantly exceeds or is independent of the inherent discomforts of confinement and is imposed for a punitive rather than legitimate governmental purpose.
3. Claims against other defendants were dismissed without prejudice because plaintiff failed to identify specific defendants and describe their actions in connection with the alleged failure to provide proper post-surgical medical supplies and care.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint stated a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment medical-care claim against Deputy Stock.
2. Whether the alleged unwanted sexual contact by Nurse Bambi stated a Fourteenth Amendment substantive-due-process or anti-punishment claim.
3. Whether the claims against unidentified defendants should be dismissed when plaintiff failed to identify specific defendants and describe their actions.
4. Whether service should be ordered on Deputy Stock and Nurse Bambi.

Disposition

other