(PC) Scott v. Garcia, et al.

Filing 70

ORDER ADOPTING 64 Findings and Recommendations In Full, GRANTING Defendants' 37 Motion for Summary Judgment, DENYING Plaintiff's 46 Motion for Summary Judgment, and DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Close the Case, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/10/2025. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk CRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDRE RENEE SCOTT,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

v.
CHARLES EDWARDS and T. YOUNG,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00317 JLT HBK (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL,
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF
COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE
(Docs. 37, 46, 64)

17
18

Andre Renee Scott asserts Charles Edwards and T. Young—who provide dental care at

19

California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility—were deliberately indifferent to his serious

20

medical needs related to his number 9 tooth, in violation of his rights arising under the Eighth

21

Amendment. (See generally Doc. 28.) The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment

22

pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docs. 37, 46.).

23

The magistrate judge noted Defendants submitted Plaintiff’s CDCR dental records, which

24

were authenticated by B. Archibald, the Chief Dentist for Policy and Risk Management at

25

CCHCS. (Doc. 64 at 2.) In addition, the magistrate judge observed that “Defendants Young and

26

Edwards could likewise authenticate the documents attached to their declarations based on their

27

personal knowledge from treating Plaintiff and reviewing his records in response to his health

28

care grievances.” (Id. at 2-3.) Therefore, the magistrate judge accepted the submitted evidence
1

1

“as true and correct copies of the documents as represented in each of the sworn declarations.”

2

(Id. at 3.)

3

The magistrate judge observed the evidence showed “[a] root canal of Plaintiff’s tooth #9

4

was unsuccessfully attempted in 2007 while he was incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison, and

5

resulted in a separated instrument, an endodontic file, being retained in Plaintiff’s tooth.” (Doc.

6

64 at 10, citing Doc. 37 at 2-3, ¶¶ 4, 5, 7.) The magistrate judge also found treatment records

7

dated October 18, 2007 indicated that “Dr. Garcia of Kern Valley State Prison stated the canal

8

was calcified and the tip of an endodontic file was broken in Scott’s tooth.” (Id. at 11, citing

9

Doc. 37-3 at 3, ¶ 7.) Two months later, Dr. Garcia indicated that she “stored the endodontic

10

access and the “situation [was] explained to” Plaintiff.” (Id.) To the extent Plaintiff sought to

11

state a claim based upon the failed root canal, the magistrate judge found “Plaintiff’s claim as to

12

the broken file tip is time barred” under the applicable statute of limitations. (Doc. 64 at 14.)

13

The magistrate judge noted Defendants acknowledged the “dental issues constituted a

14

serious medical issue.” (Doc. 65 at 14, quoting Doc. 37 at 10.) However, the magistrate judge

15

found “Plaintiff does not meet the second prong of medical deliberate indifference—failure to

16

respond to a prisoner’s serious medical need—as to either Defendant.” (Id. at 15.) The

17

magistrate judge found Edwards and Young “did not fail to properly examine, counsel, or propose

18

reasonable treatment for Plaintiff’s dental needs.” (Id. at 17; see also id. at 15.) Rather, the

19

magistrate judge noted “the unrefuted opinions of multiple dentists is that the proposed extraction

20

of tooth #9”—which Young recommended and Plaintiff declined—“was medically appropriate to

21

prevent further infection of Plaintiff’s gums and avoid other serious consequences.” (Id.)

22

To the extent Plaintiff premised his claim upon “failure to refer him to an outside medical

23

provider,” the magistrate judge found this also fails, because “[a] prison inmate has no

24

independent constitutional right to outside medical care beyond that provided by the prison

25

staff.” (Doc. 65 at 16.) The magistrate judge explained:

26
27
28

Only if the prison’s medical staff is not competent to examine,
diagnose, and treat an inmate’s medical problems must they “refer
[the inmate] to others who can.” Stocker v. Nevada, 2024 WL
4112299, at *8 (D. Nev. Aug. 12, 2024) (internal citations omitted).
Here, the undisputed facts show that Defendants Young and Edwards
2

1
2

were both competent to diagnose and treat Plaintiff’s apical infection,
thus Plaintiff had no constitutional right to be referred to an outside
medical specialist.

3

(Id., modification in original.) Further, the magistrate judge found that “Plaintiff’s allegations

4

amount at most to a difference of medical opinion.” (Id. at 15; see also id. at 15-17.) The

5

magistrate judge found: “Ultimately, the undisputed facts establish that Plaintiff’s refusal to

6

accept reasonable medical treatment, rather than any deliberate indifference…, was the proximate

7

cause of Plaintiff’s injury.” (Id. at 16.)

8

Finally, the magistrate judge found “the Court need not address the issue of qualified

9

immunity,” because Plaintiff did not show either Defendant violated his constitutional rights.

10

(Doc. 64 at 18.) Nevertheless, assuming Plaintiff established a constitutional violation, the

11

magistrate judge found “Plaintiff has not shown the existence of binding authority or a robust

12

consensus of persuasive authority holding that a dentist in a correctional setting is required to

13

refer a Plaintiff for outside medical care when reasonable care is available within the institution.”

14

(Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge found “under the undisputed facts in this case Defendants

15

are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claim that he should have been referred to an

16

outside dental specialist.” (Id. at 19.) The magistrate judge recommended the Court grant

17

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, deny Plaintiff’s motion, and enter judgment in favor

18

of Defendants. (Id. at 19.)

19

Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 69.)

20

However, Plaintiff’s objections do not meaningfully respond to the specific findings of the

21

magistrate judge. Plaintiff simply reiterates his belief that Defendants violated his constitutional

22

rights by “depriving him access to treatment,” without acknowledging the undisputed medical

23

records showing the treatment offered, recommendations Defendants made, and Plaintiff’s own

24

refusals. (See id. at 5-6.) Although Plaintiff maintains he had a right to outside treatment (id. at

25

6), this also is contrary to well-established law. See Roberts v. Spalding, 783 F.2d 867, 870 (9th

26

Cir. 1986); see also Amarir v. Hill, 243 Fed. Appx. 353, 354 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding a

27

physician’s denial of the plaintiff’s “request to see an outside specialist… did not amount to

28

deliberate indifference” because “[a] prison inmate has no independent constitutional right to
3

1

outside medical care supplemental or additional to the medical care provided by the prison staff

2

within the institution”). Finally, to the extent Plaintiff maintains Defendants are not entitled to

3

qualified immunity (see id. 5-6, 8-9), the Court need not address the issue because Plaintiff did

4

not show a violation of his constitutional rights. See Saycuer v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001)

5

(if a constitutional right is not established, “there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning

6

qualified immunity”); Fouts v. County of Clark, 76 Fed. Appx. 825 (9th Cir. 2003 (the court

7

“need not reach the issue whether the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

8

because there has been no violation of a constitutional right”).

9

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court performed a de novo review of this

10

case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds

11

the Findings and Recommendation to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus,

12

the Court ORDERS:

13

1.

14

The Findings and Recommendations dated November 20, 2024 (Doc. 64), are
ADOPTED in full.

15

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 37) is GRANTED.

16

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 46) is DENIED.

17

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants Young and

18

Edwards, and against Plaintiff Andre Renee Scott, and to close this case.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 10, 2025

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4