Tenore v. Goodgame et al

Filing 75

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 3/7/14 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 2/6/14 67 are ADOPTED in full; and Defendants' MOTION for Summary Judgment 44 is DENIED as to Defendants Tseng and Goodgame and GRANTED as to defendants Smith, Heffner and Heatley.(Mena-Sanchez, L) (Main Document 75 replaced on 3/7/2014) (Mena-Sanchez, L).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL TENORE,

12
13
14

No. 2:11-cv-1082 WBS CKD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

NATHANAEL GOODGAME, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

19

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On February 6, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

21

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

22

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Both plaintiff and

23

defendants have filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

24

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

25

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

26

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

27

analysis.

28

In his objections, plaintiff concedes summary judgment is proper as to defendants Smith
1

1

and Heffner, but contends that summary judgment is improper as to Dr. Heatley, who plaintiff

2

claims knew of the scabies outbreak in the prison and had received plaintiff’s requests for further

3

medical assistance. However, the undidputed evidence shows Dr. Heatley only treated plaintiff

4

for unrelated conditions and, therefore, does not support a causal connection between any acts or

5

omissions and plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff also requests an extension of time for further discovery

6

and an order to compel the production of certain documents. These requests may be addressed by

7

the magistrate judge.

8
9

Defendants raise three objections to the findings and recommendations. First, defendants
contend that the magistrate judge improperly relied upon inadmissible evidence and treated

10

plaintiff’s allegations as fact despite defendants’ evidence to the contrary. Many of the

11

statements defendants object to, however, are the magistrate judge’s characterization of the facts

12

or factual inferences, rather than inadmissible items of evidence from plaintiff. The other factual

13

objections are not central to the court’s analysis and the court will reject these objections as moot.

14

Second, defendants object to the magistrate judge’s analysis of plaintiff’s deliberate

15

indifference claim against Dr. Tseng and Nurse Goodgame--in particular the determination that

16

Tseng and Goodgame “(possibly) knew and disregarded plaintiff’s risk of having scabies when

17

other treatments proved ineffective.” However, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to

18

plaintiff, such an inference is reasonable given that the record supports findings that plaintiff

19

constantly raised the issue of scabies to no avail, there may have been a scabies outbreak in the

20

prison at the time, and the various treatments plaintiff received were ineffective until he received

21

scabies medication. Nurse Goodgame’s comment that the reason plaintiff did not receive relief

22

“could be [his] attitude” further raises a factual dispute as to defendants’ knowledge and

23

motivation. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that a plaintiff

24

can support a claim of deliberate indifference by showing that a physician’s treatment decision

25

was motivated by something other than medical judgment).

26

Finally, defendants object based on their contention that Dr. Tseng and Nurse Goodgame

27

are entitled to qualified immunity. To the contrary, courts hold that a determination that triable

28

issues remain as to deliberate indifference precludes summary judgment on the ground that
2

1

defendants could reasonably have believed their conduct did not violate clearly established law.

2

Jackson, 90 F.3d at 332; see also Albers v. Whitley, 743 F.2d 1372, 1376 (9th Cir. 1984) (noting

3

that deliberate indifference and qualified immunity are “mutually exclusive”), rev’d on other

4

grounds, 475 U.S. 312 (1986).

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 6, 2014 are adopted in full; and

7

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 44) is denied as to defendants

8

Tseng and Goodgame and granted as to defendants Smith, Heffner and Heatley.

9

Dated: March 7, 2014

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3