(PC) Smith v. Uzma

E.D. California

(PC) Smith v. Uzma

DecidedJanuary 14, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-00683

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Smith v. Uzma ((PC) Smith v. Uzma) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Smith v. Uzma, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONALD JOSHUA SMITH, Case No. 2:24-cv-00683-TLN-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CHAUDRY UZMA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this action against several medical providers at the 19 California Health Care Facility and San Joaquin General Hospital. On November 13, 2024, I 20 screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found that it stated viable Eighth Amendment 21 inadequate medical care claims against defendants Uzma and Gill. ECF No. 16. I found that the 22 complaint failed to state a viable claim against any other defendant, however. Plaintiff filed a 23 notice of election on December 23, 2024, indicating his intent to proceed with the claims that I 24 identified as viable, with the caveat that he also proceed with his claim against San Joaquin 25 General Hospital. ECF No. 25. That claim, however, is premised on a theory of respondeat 26 superior liability, ECF No. 10 at 2, which is unavailable in section 1983 actions. See Jett v. 27 Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 736 (1989) (“We have rejected respondeat superior as a 28 1 | basis for holding a state actor liable under section 1983.”). My screening order failed to apprise 2 | plaintiff of this fact or to consider the viability of any claim against the San Joaquin General 3 | Hospital, a defendant mentioned only in the caption. 4 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 5 1. Within thirty days, plaintiff may once again confirm his intent to proceed only 6 | with the Eighth Amendment claims against Uzma and Gill, or delay service and file an amended 7 | complaint. 8 2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this 9 | order. 10 Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ( ie - Dated: _ January 13, 2025 q-—— 13 JEREMY D. PETERSON 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONALD JOSHUA SMITH, Case No. 2:24-cv-00683-TLN-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CHAUDRY UZMA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this action against several medical providers at the 19 California Health Care Facility and San Joaquin General Hospital. On November 13, 2024, I 20 screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found that it stated viable Eighth Amendment 21 inadequate medical care claims against defendants Uzma and Gill. ECF No. 16. I found that the 22 complaint failed to state a viable claim against any other defendant, however. Plaintiff filed a 23 notice of election on December 23, 2024, indicating his intent to proceed with the claims that I 24 identified as viable, with the caveat that he also proceed with his claim against San Joaquin 25 General Hospital. ECF No. 25. That claim, however, is premised on a theory of respondeat 26 superior liability, ECF No. 10 at 2, which is unavailable in section 1983 actions. See Jett v. 27 Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 736 (1989) (“We have rejected respondeat superior as a 28 1 | basis for holding a state actor liable under section 1983.”). My screening order failed to apprise 2 | plaintiff of this fact or to consider the viability of any claim against the San Joaquin General 3 | Hospital, a defendant mentioned only in the caption. 4 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 5 1. Within thirty days, plaintiff may once again confirm his intent to proceed only 6 | with the Eighth Amendment claims against Uzma and Gill, or delay service and file an amended 7 | complaint. 8 2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this 9 | order. 10 Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ( ie - Dated: _ January 13, 2025 q-—— 13 JEREMY D. PETERSON 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Smith v. Uzma, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-smith-v-uzma-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack