Davies v. DelaVega et.al.
Filing
101
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 6/12/2018 VACATING 40 Order dismissing all defendants other than Crosson and RECOMMENDING all defendants and claims other than a claim arising under the Eighth Amendment against defendant Crosson be dismissed, 73 Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, defendant Crosson be dismissed from this action, and this case be closed. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
AVON DAVIES,
12
13
14
No. 2:14-cv-2831 MCE CKD P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER AND
M. DELAVEGA, et al.,
15
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil
18
rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Two matters are before the court.
19
I. Screening
20
On March 8, 2016, the court screened plaintiff’s third amended complaint as the court is
21
required to do under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court found that plaintiff’s complaint stated a claim
22
upon which plaintiff could proceed under the Eighth Amendment against defendant Crosson.
23
Since plaintiff had consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the
24
court dismissed all other defendants and claims.
25
In Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017) the Ninth Circuit found
26
magistrate judges do not have authority to dismiss any named-defendant from a case unless that
27
defendant has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, even if, as in this case, the defendant has
28
not been served with process, nor been screened in pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In light of
1
1
Williams, the court will vacate its order dismissing all defendants other than defendant Crosson,
2
and instead recommend that all defendants other than defendant Crosson and all claims other than
3
a claim arising under the Eighth Amendment against defendant Crosson be dismissed.
4
Generally speaking, plaintiff alleges that the fact that he did not receive any treatment for
5
what plaintiff describes as a fungal infection of the eyes amounts to cruel and unusual punishment
6
in violation of the Eighth Amendment. At all times relevant, plaintiff was permitted access to
7
defendant Crosson, a board-certified ophthalmologist, and there is nothing in plaintiff’s complaint
8
suggesting any defendant knew defendant Crosson either did not, would not or was not capable of
9
providing plaintiff constitutionally adequate treatment. This being the case, plaintiff fails to state
10
a claim upon which relief can be granted against any defendant other than defendant Crosson.
11
Also, plaintiff asserts some claims arising under California law. However, he has not pled
12
compliance with the California Tort Claims Act, which he must do to proceed on claims arising
13
under California law in this court. State v. Superior Court, 32 Cal. 4th, 1234, 1239 (2004).
14
II. Motion for Summary Judgment
As indicated above, plaintiff’s remaining claim is against defendant Dr. Charles Crosson,
15
16
an ophthalmologist. Plaintiff asserts treatment provided by Dr. Crosson at California State
17
Prison, Solano (CSP Solano) amounts to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
18
Amendment. Defendant Crosson’s motion for summary judgment is before the court.
19
A. Allegations Relevant to Plaintiff’s Remaining Claim
20
In his third amended complaint, plaintiff alleges defendant Crosson subjected plaintiff to
21
cruel and unusual punishment by denying plaintiff’s “request for specialized medical care.” ECF
22
No. 36 at 23. Plaintiff suffered various symptoms as the result of what he believes is a fungal
23
infection in his eyes. Plaintiff asserts treatment for such an infection, which was not provided by
24
defendant, “may range from application of anti-fungal drugs to a combination of anti-fungal
25
agents and surgery, including aspiration of the vitreous fluid within the eye.” ECF No. 36 at 5.
26
Plaintiff alleges defendant, in lieu of providing treatment for plaintiff’s alleged fungal infection,
27
could have referred plaintiff to a specialist.
28
/////
2
1
Plaintiff asserts defendant’s failure to treat plaintiff’s fungal infection or refer plaintiff to a
2
specialist in fungal infections of the eye has resulted in injury for which plaintiff should be
3
compensated. ECF No. 36 at 3.
4
B. Medical Care Under the Eighth Amendment
5
Denial of medical care for a prisoner’s serious medical needs may constitute a violation of
6
the prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05 (1976). A prison official
7
commits such a violation only when the official is deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious
8
medical needs. Id. A “serious medical need” exists when “failure to treat a prisoner’s condition
9
could result in further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’” Jett
10
v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104. Deliberate
11
indifference is established by (a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or
12
possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096.
13
A showing of merely negligent medical care is not enough to establish a constitutional
14
violation. Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir. 1998), citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-
15
106. A difference of opinion about the proper course of treatment is not deliberate indifference,
16
nor does a dispute between a prisoner and prison officials over the necessity for or extent of
17
medical treatment amount to a constitutional violation. See, e.g., Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d
18
1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989).
19
C. Summary Judgment Standard
20
Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there “is no genuine
21
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
22
Civ. P. 56(a). A party asserting that a fact cannot be disputed must support the assertion by
23
“citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents,
24
electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for
25
purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials. . .” Fed. R.
26
Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A).
27
28
Summary judgment should be entered, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion,
against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element
3
1
essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See
2
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an
3
essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.”
4
Id.
5
If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing
6
party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus.
7
Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In attempting to establish the existence of
8
this factual dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the allegations or denials of their
9
pleadings but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the form of affidavits, and/or
10
admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the dispute exists or show that the
11
materials cited by the movant do not establish the absence of a genuine dispute. See Fed. R. Civ.
12
P. 56(c); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11. The opposing party must demonstrate that the fact in
13
contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing
14
law, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v.
15
Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987), and that the dispute is
16
genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
17
party, see Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 1436 (9th Cir. 1987).
18
In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not
19
establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the claimed factual
20
dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at
21
trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631. Thus, the “purpose of summary judgment is to ‘pierce
22
the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.’”
23
Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) advisory committee’s note on 1963
24
amendments).
25
In resolving the summary judgment motion, the evidence of the opposing party is to be
26
believed. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. All reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the
27
facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. See Matsushita, 475
28
U.S. at 587. Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the opposing party’s
4
1
obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. See Richards
2
v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D. Cal. 1985), aff’d, 810 F.2d 898, 902
3
(9th Cir. 1987). Finally, to demonstrate a genuine issue, the opposing party “must do more than
4
simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . . Where the record
5
taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no
6
‘genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citation omitted).
7
D. Arguments and Analysis
8
Defendant argues that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant
9
was at least deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s eye issues. Considering: 1) the extensive care
10
plaintiff received from defendant, a second ophthalmologist to whom plaintiff was referred by
11
defendant and other medical professionals; and 2) plaintiff has failed to put forth any admissible
12
evidence indicating he has a fungal infection in either eye, the court agrees.
13
In his affidavit, defendant Crosson asserts as follows:
14
I am familiar with Plaintiff Avon Davies through multiple
interactions with and examinations of him during his incarceration
at Solano. I know from my examinations of Mr. Davies that he is
highly nearsighted in each eye and reports to have worn glasses
since childhood. He also has amblyopia, sometimes called lazy
eye, in his right eye. It is a condition that prevents that lazy eye
from seeing as clearly as the other eye. Because this condition was
not fully corrected in early childhood, it has become permanent and
cannot be treated.
15
16
17
18
19
According to a medical record prepared by a Solano optometrist,
Dr. Atwal, on October 18, 2013, Mr. Davies complained of a floater
in his eye but said it did not look like a normal floater. Floaters are
spots in vision, which may look like black or grey specks, strings,
or cobwebs that drift around in the field of vision. Most floaters are
caused by age-related changes that occur as the jelly-like substance
(vitreous) inside of your eyes becomes more liquid. The likelihood
of floaters is also increased in nearsighted people.
20
21
22
23
According to Dr. Atwal’s notes, he evaluated Mr. Davies and found
no obvious signs of a foreign body in the eye. He determined Mr.
Davies to have either an ocular migraine or vitreous floater. Dr.
Atwal did not see any holes, tears, or breaks in Mr. Davies’s eyes,
which would signify an urgent situation with potential for loss of
eyesight. As Mr. Davies’s condition was not urgent or emergent,
Dr. Atwal recommended that he follow up with the ophthalmologist
(me) in one to two weeks.
24
25
26
27
28
/////
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I examined Mr. Davies in connection with his complaint of a floater
or object in his vision in his left eye on October 30, 2013, and I
determined that his visual acuity had not decreased and was the
same as I recorded on his exam in February 2012. My diagnosis of
Mr. Davies on October 30, 2013, was that he had posterior vitreous
detachments in both eyes, asymptomatic in the right and with a
symptomatic floater in the left eye.
Rarely a posterior vitreous detachment can cause a retinal
detachment, but Mr. Davies’s retina was fully attached with no
retinal tears. Vitreous detachment is a common occurrence mainly
in patients fifty years of age or older. It is also more prevalent in
patients with high myopia (nearsightedness). Mr. Davies was sixtythree years old at the time of the October 2013 exam with high
myopia. Vitreous detachment can bring annoying floaters into the
patient’s field of vision but the floaters gradually clear over time.
Though the floaters can be annoying for months until they settle out
of the central vision, a vitreous detachment without retinal
detachment does not threaten sight. Therefore, the standard of care
is that posterior vitreous detachment can be managed without
medical intervention. An ophthalmologist should explain his
findings to the patient and advise the patient to return immediately
if any signs of retinal tears or detachment occur. I complied with
this standard and requested to see Mr. Davies again in one year for
follow-up.
At no point during the October 30, 2013 examination or any other
examination of Mr. Davies have I detected a fungal infection in his
eye. Based on Mr. Davies’s records, neither Dr. Tesluk nor Dr.
Atwal detected any fungal or other infection in Mr. Davies’s eyes.
Symptoms of a fungal infection include blurred vision and pain that
without treatment would inexorably worsen, resulting ultimately in
a blind, painful eye, and the infection would probably spread to the
surrounding tissues. If not put on treatment for a fungal infection, a
patient would lose not only an eye but also other body parts. Mr.
Davies’s medical records do not support the presence of a fungal
infection anywhere in his body.
Fungal infections arise from one of two routes. One route is by
introducing fungus into the eye through a direct, penetrating injury
to the eyeball. The second route is when it comes from a fungal
infection elsewhere in the body (primary site) and is then carried by
the bloodstream to the eye. This results in a fungal infection in the
eye with white-ish, creamycolored visible microabscesses in the
back of the eye, which then spread internally to the retina and
vitreous. Signs include the white lesions in the retina-choroid and
inflammatory cells in the vitreous. These signs would be detectable
during an eye examination. Mr. Davies had no signs of a fungal
infection present in his eyes.
According to his medical records, Mr. Davies continued to
complain to his primary care provider, Dr. Sweeney, about a
microorganism in his eye and vision changes. In response to one
complaint on November 7, 2013, Dr. Sweeney, requested tests for
stool ova and parasites. The test results were negative.
6
1
2
3
4
According to his medical records, on January 14, 2014, Mr. Davies
reported a sudden loss of peripheral vision in his right eye to
medical staff in Solano’s Triage and Treatment Area (TTA). TTA
staff referred Mr. Davies to San Joaquin General Hospital for
evaluation. The records from San Joaquin General Hospital show
that Mr. Davies was discharged the same day without seeing an
ophthalmologist. His CT scan and stroke panel results were
negative.
5
6
I next saw Mr. Davies on February 27, 2014, however, he refused
an examination and stated that he did not believe the appointment
was necessary.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
According to his medical records, Mr. Davies saw Registered Nurse
Carlson on March 27, 2014, and complained about a fungus in both
of his eyes. He denied pain at the time. Nurse Carlson noted
“Anxiety aeb multiple requests to see eye doctor.” “Aeb” is a
medical abbreviation for “as evidenced by.” She found no obvious
abnormalities affecting Mr. Davies’s eyes.
In June 2014, I referred Mr. Davies to another ophthalmologist, Dr.
Tesluk, for a second opinion. I made the referral because Mr.
Davies had again refused medical services after I confirmed my
original diagnosis that he had a vitreous detachment and not a
fungal infection. I have reviewed Dr. Tesluk’s letter regarding his
June 30, 2014 examination of Mr. Davies and see that he also
diagnosed Mr. Davies with a vitreous detachment in his left eye and
no sign of fungal infection.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On July 30, 2014, I followed up with Mr. Davies about his visit
with Dr. Tesluk. Mr. Davies was frustrated with Dr. Tesluk’s
diagnosis that he had a vitreous detachment and did not have a
fungal infection. Mr. Davies complained he was experiencing pain,
which I told him could be caused by migraines. I recommended
that Mr. Davies’s primary care doctor consider a trial with antimigraine medicine. Because some of my examination equipment
was not working that day, I recommended that we continue the
appointment in two weeks. Mr. Davies stated he would refuse the
appointment.
On February 22, 2015, Mr. Davies reported to Solano’s TTA
complaining of left eye pain and bleeding. According to the TTA
records, Mr. Davies was sitting comfortably during the visit without
grimacing. This behavior was inconsistent with his complaints of
pain. A progress note from Dr. Sweeney the next day indicates that
he detected left eye subconjunctival hemorrhage and vision changes
in Mr. Davies. Subconjunctival hemorrhaging is a common and
benign condition that occurs when small blood vessels in the eye
leak and bleed into the area between the white part of the eye and
the transparent coating of the eye. It may be caused by sudden or
severe pressure such as a sneeze or cough, heavy lifting, vomiting,
straining due to constipation, or rubbing one’s eyes too roughly. Its
appearance may be alarming but it is generally painless and
harmless. Subconjunctival hemorrhaging will clear on its own and
no treatment is required.
7
1
2
3
4
5
I next saw Mr. Davies on March 18, 2015, where he again refused
an examination. I was able to observe that his subconjunctival
hemorrhage had significantly cleared, as expected.
On September 16, 2015, Mr. Davies returned to the clinic and
complained of twitching in his right eyelid and pain in his left eye.
I attempted to explain the quivering to Mr. Davies, but he disagreed
with me and I could tell we had lost rapport. I offered to refer Mr.
Davies to another eye physician and notified Dr. Sweeney of my
recommendation.
6
7
8
9
10
11
On September 28, 2015, Dr. Tesluk examined Mr. Davies for a
second time. According to a letter of the same date, Dr. Tesluk
concluded again that Mr. Davies had a vitreous detachment in his
left eye and that no treatment was necessary. He also found that
Mr. Davies had no ophthalmological condition that could be
causing eye pain. Dr. Tesluk did not recommend that Mr. Davies
be provided with pain medication for his eyes and recommended a
follow-up visit in one year.
On June 29, 2016, Mr. Davies refused medical services from me
again.
12
13
14
15
16
As indicated in defendant’s affidavit, defendant referred plaintiff to Dr. Tesluk on two
occasions. In his affidavit, Dr. Tesluk indicates as follows:
Since 1995, I have served as the Medical Director of the Modesto
Surgery Center. As Medical Director, I am responsible for
activities related to the delivery of medical care including quality
assurance, cost management, and medical protocol development.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
In addition to my responsibilities as Medical Director, I perform
routine examinations to detect, diagnose, and manage patients’ eye
conditions and diseases. I also perform cataract/implant surgery,
retina surgery, refractive surgery, and ocuplastic surgery.
I am familiar with Mr. Avon Davies through my work as an
ophthalmologist. I first examined Mr. Davies on June 30, 2014 at
the Modesto Surgery Center, following a referral from Dr. Crosson.
It was my understanding from the brief description included with
the referral that Mr. Davies was experiencing eye pain and believed
he had an infection. I did not receive information about how Dr.
Crosson or anyone else had diagnosed Mr. Davies. I spoke with
Mr. Davies about his symptoms and he stated a belief about having
some type of fungal pathology and objects in his eyes. I conducted
an examination, which revealed he had poor vision in his right eye
from myopic amblyopia. Further examination showed he had a
vitreous detachment in his left eye, but no presence of retinal tears.
Though the floaters caused by a vitreous detachment can be an
annoyance, vitreous detachments occur commonly with age and the
standard of care does not require medical intervention. Symptoms
typically disappear on their own over time. Mr. Davies also has
28
8
1
drooping in his right eyelid. It occurs with age and does not require
medical intervention.
2
In addition to his concern about a fungal infection, Mr. Davies
complained of eye pain. However, at no time during the
examination or our conversation did Mr. Davies’s facial
expressions or mannerisms suggest that he was in pain. Besides
stating that he was in pain, Mr. Davies exhibited no other pain
indicators. Lack of reactive pain indicators signals that a patient
might not be suffering the pain he claims to be.
3
4
5
6
Mr. Davies exhibited no signs of any infection. If Mr. Davies had a
fungal infection he would have had redness and pain. As
mentioned above, Mr. Davies lacked indicators of pain during the
examination. Mr. Davies also would have had opacification of the
cornea (white-ish patches), or inflammation in the anterior or
vitreous chambers, which would look like cellular debris floating
on the eye, if he had a fungal infection. Each of these symptoms
would have been visible in the examination.
7
8
9
10
11
I saw Mr. Davies again on September 28, 2015. Mr. Davies
continued to complain of eye pain and a fungal infection. I
conducted another examination, which again showed the myopic
amblyopia in his right eye, and a vitreous opacity in the left eye
from the vitreous detachment. He had no ophthalmic condition that
could be causing his eye pain. Accordingly, I did not recommend
that Mr. Davies be provided any pain medication for his eye. This
examination of Mr. Davies revealed none of the symptoms that
would be present if he had a fungal infection.
12
13
14
15
16
Based on my education, experience, training, and examinations of
Mr. Davies, it is my professional opinion that there is no evidence
to support his claim of a fungal infection or any other infection of
the eye. It is also my professional opinion that the examination,
diagnosis, and treatment plan Mr. Davies received for his eye
concerns were within the ophthalmological standard of care.
17
18
19
The court notes that plaintiff disputes certain parts of defendant and Dr. Tesluk’s
20
21
affidavits and the court construes all of the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff.
22
However, what is not disputed is that defendant never refused to see plaintiff, never interfered
23
with treatment provided by others and referred plaintiff for second opinions on two occasions. It
24
is also not disputed that Dr. Tesluk agrees with defendant that plaintiff did not suffer from a
25
fungal infection, and plaintiff fails to point to any admissible evidence suggesting that he did or
26
does. Finally, there is no evidence suggesting defendant’s failure to treat plaintiff’s eye
27
condition as a fungal infection caused plaintiff any harm.
28
////
9
1
After reviewing all of the evidence before the court, there is no genuine issue of material
2
fact as to whether defendant’s treatment of plaintiff eyes issues amount to cruel and unusual
3
punishment as there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately
4
indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs
5
Plaintiff also alleges neither defendant nor Dr. Tesluk had the necessary expertise to
6
diagnosis or treat plaintiff’s fungal infection. In their affidavits, both defendant and Dr. Tesluk
7
indicate they are board certified in ophthalmology. Defendant has been certified since 1981, and
8
Dr. Tesluk since 1987. There is nothing admissible before the court suggesting these facts do not
9
render defendant and Dr. Tesluk qualified to treat eye infections.
10
E. Conclusion
11
For all the foregoing reasons, the court will recommend that defendant Crosson’s motion
12
for summary judgment be granted, and he be dismissed from this action.1
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court’s March 8, 2016
13
14
order that all defendants other than defendant Crosson be dismissed is vacated.
15
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
16
1. All defendants and claims other than a claim arising under the Eighth Amendment
17
against defendant Crosson be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
18
2. Defendant Crosson’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 73) be granted;
19
3. Defendant Crosson be dismissed from this action; and
20
4. This case be closed.
21
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
22
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
23
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
24
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
25
26
27
1
As argued by defendant, defendant is also entitled to summary judgment based upon the
“qualified immunity” doctrine because there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether
defendant Crosson violated clearly established statutory or Constitutional rights of which a
reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
28
10
1
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
2
objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
3
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
4
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
5
Dated: June 12, 2018
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
1
davi2831.msj
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?