Charles Kinsey v. Susan Pasha, Nurse Practitioner

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California screened Charles Kinsey’s Second Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). The court found that Kinsey plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Nurse Practitioner Susan Pasha, but dismissed his First Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment medical-care claims for failure to state a claim. Kinsey was given 45 days to proceed only on the surviving claim or file a Third Amended Complaint.

Holdings

1. The Second Amended Complaint plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim because it alleged that Pasha knew the path posed a substantial risk of serious harm, drew that inference from prior incidents and injuries, and disregarded the risk, resulting in Kinsey's broken finger.
2. The First Amendment retaliation claim was dismissed for failure to state a claim because Kinsey did not plausibly allege protected conduct, causation, chilling, or the absence of a legitimate correctional goal.
3. The Eighth Amendment medical-care claim was dismissed because the allegations that Pasha improperly set Kinsey's finger amounted at most to negligence or medical malpractice and did not plausibly establish deliberate indifference.
4. The court granted Kinsey 45 days either to proceed only on the surviving failure-to-protect claim or to file a complete Third Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies in the dismissed claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Second Amended Complaint plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Pasha.
2. Whether the Second Amended Complaint plausibly alleged a First Amendment retaliation claim based on Pasha's discontinuation of Kinsey's wheelchair accommodation after he requested privacy during medical questioning.
3. Whether the Second Amended Complaint plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim based on Pasha's treatment of Kinsey's broken finger.
4. Whether Kinsey should be permitted to proceed on the surviving claim or amend the complaint again.

Disposition

other