Published September, 2015
Singletary v. Duffy, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106219 (E.D. Calif., Aug. 11, 2015)
CALIFORNIA – United States Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman dismissed HIV postive inmate Gondee Charles Singletary’s pro se complaint upon initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), because it failed to show how the named defendants were responsible under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the challenged policy – to wit: denying HIV+ inmates placement on a kidney transplant list. Singletary sued the warden, the chief medical officer, and the receiver appointed to oversee California’s prison medical care, seeking damages and an injunction. After extensive discussion about the receiver’s amenability to suit, Judge Newman found him entitled to quasi-judicial immunity as an appointee of the court. He granted Singletary leave to file an amended complaint about the warden and the chief medical officer, with instructions to show an “actual connection or link” between the constitutional violation and the acts of the defendants, citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Judge Newman wrote: “Plaintiff has not alleged that defendants were personally involved in the constitutional deprivation or that they instituted the allegedly deficient policy. Plaintiff will be given leave to cure this deficiency.” Although the case would seem to present such issues, there is no discussion of the Americans with Disabilities or Rehabilitation Acts; and Judge Newman did not appoint counsel. (Summary provided by September 2015 Lesbian / Gay Law Notes).
Copyright Information: CHLP encourages the broad use and sharing of resources. Please credit CHLP when using these materials or their content. and do not alter, adapt or present as your work without prior permission from CHLP.
Legal Disclaimer: CHLP makes an effort to ensure legal information is correct and current, but the law is regularly changing, and the accuracy of the information provided cannot be guaranteed. The legal information in a given resource may not be applicable to all situations and is not—and should not be relied upon—as a substitute for legal advice.