(PC) Smith v. Uzma

Opinion

DONALD JOSHUA SMITH, Case No. 2:24-cv-00683-TLN-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER CHAUDRY UZMA, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this action against several medical providers at the California Health Care Facility and San Joaquin General Hospital. On November 13, 2024, I screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found that it stated viable Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claims against defendants Uzma and Gill. ECF No. 16. I found that the complaint failed to state a viable claim against any other defendant, however. Plaintiff filed a notice of election on December 23, 2024, indicating his intent to proceed with the claims that I identified as viable, with the caveat that he also proceed with his claim against San Joaquin General Hospital. ECF No. 25. That claim, however, is premised on a theory of respondeat superior liability, ECF No. 10 at 2, which is unavailable in section 1983 actions. See Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 736 (1989) (“We have rejected respondeat superior as a basis for holding a state actor liable under section 1983.”). My screening order failed to apprise plaintiff of this fact or to consider the viability of any claim against the San Joaquin General Hospital, a defendant mentioned only in the caption. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. Within thirty days, plaintiff may once again confirm his intent to proceed only with the Eighth Amendment claims against Uzma and Gill, or delay service and file an amended complaint. 2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this order. Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. ( ie - Dated: _ January 13, 2025 q-—— JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE