Scalant v. Santa Cruz County Jail Sheriffs Administration
3:23-cv-06304
| N.D. Cal. | Jan 6, 2025Background
- Alberto Scalant, a pretrial detainee at Santa Cruz County Jail, brought a pro se civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging inadequate medical care.
- Scalant originally complained that he was prescribed Zyprexa without being informed of all side effects and then experienced serious symptoms (swelling, breathing problems, rapid weight gain, skin imprints, and Shingles outbreak).
- Earlier versions of the complaint were dismissed for lack of specific allegations and failure to identify responsible defendants; the second amended complaint named Dr. S. Fratianni specifically.
- The Court reviewed the second amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found one cognizable claim against Dr. Fratianni for deliberate indifference to medical needs under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- All other claims against other defendants, including unnamed doctors and contracting medical companies, were dismissed without leave to amend due to failure to state a claim.
- Dr. Fratianni was ordered to be served and must respond by May 7, 2025; the case proceeds only on the deliberate indifference claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference to medical needs | Dr. Fratianni failed to respond properly to serious side effects from Zyprexa, ignored symptoms, and did not seek proper referrals or alternatives | Defendant not yet heard; earlier defense was general denial of specific actionable conduct | Plaintiff stated sufficient facts to proceed against Fratianni under the Fourteenth Amendment |
| Claims against other defendants (unnamed doctors/company) | Other unspecified medical providers and companies failed to treat plaintiff adequately | Defendant not yet heard; court noted lack of specific allegations | Dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim |
| Sufficiency of Plaintiff's allegations | Allegations were based on reported and observed side effects and lack of medical action | Defendant not yet heard | Sufficient against Dr. Fratianni only; insufficient as to others |
| Amendment of Complaint | Plaintiff sought multiple opportunities to amend to correct deficiencies | Not applicable | Further amendment would be futile for claims except against Dr. Fratianni |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must state a facially plausible claim for relief)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above speculation)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (§ 1983 claim requires constitutional violation by a state actor)
- Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1988) (pro se pleadings must be liberally construed)
- Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 1994) (court not required to accept legal conclusions as factual allegations)
- Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2018) (outlines deliberate indifference standard for pretrial detainee medical claims under the Fourteenth Amendment)