Terhune v. Lizarraga et al
Filing
35
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 2/7/2018 RECOMMENDING defendant's 32 motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part as follows: (a) Defendant's motion on plaintiff's Ei ghth Amendment deliberate indifference claim be denied, (b) Defendants motion on plaintiffs First Amendment claim be granted, and (c) Defendants motion for summary judgment with respect to the defense of qualified immunity be denied; plaintiff's request to add the unidentified MCSP scheduler as a defendant in this matter be denied; and the case shall proceed solely on plaintiffs Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections to F&R due within 21 days. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CAMERON R. TERHUNE,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:15-cv-1738 TLN DB P
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
JOE LIZARRAGA, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42
17
18
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges defendant, Dr. Pace, was deliberately indifferent to his medical
19
needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and retaliated against him in violation of the First
20
Amendment. Presently before the court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No.
21
32.) For the reasons set forth below, the court will recommend that defendant’s motion be
22
granted in part and denied in part .
23
24
25
BACKGROUND
I.
Plaintiff’s Complaint
Plaintiff’s complaint contains the following allegations. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff was
26
injured at work on May 14, 2015, exacerbating an existing genetic condition and old injuries.
27
Plaintiff was treated immediately following the incident, but was not seen by a doctor for a
28
follow-up visit thereafter. Plaintiff filed numerous requests and used the prison grievance system
1
to try and receive an appointment with his Primary Care Provider (“PCP”), defendant Dr. Pace.
2
Plaintiff claims several of his appointments were cancelled by defendant, who left early
3
when plaintiff had a ducat for an appointment with him, and his Tylenol #3 prescription was cut
4
off after he started using the administrative grievance system. Plaintiff alleges he was denied
5
treatment based on his extensive mental health history.
6
II.
7
Procedural Background
Plaintiff filed the complaint in August 2015. (ECF No. 1.) The magistrate judge then
8
assigned to the case screened the complaint, ordered service appropriate for defendant Dr. Pace,
9
and dismissed the remaining defendants. (ECF No. 5.) After the close of discovery defendant
10
filed the instant motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32) and plaintiff responded (ECF No.
11
34).
12
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
13
In support of his summary judgment motion defendant argues he had no control over the
14
schedule that caused the six-week delay1 in plaintiff’s treatment, he did not know plaintiff filed an
15
administrative grievance against him when he decided not to renew plaintiff’s prescription,
16
plaintiff has failed to allege facts showing the adverse action chilled the exercise of plaintiff’s
17
First Amendment rights, and he is entitled to qualified immunity.
18
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE
19
In his response, plaintiff argues defendant could have taken further actions to ensure
20
plaintiff was treated. Plaintiff claims defendant could have sent plaintiff a priority ducat, had him
21
paged directly, or refrained from leaving early, and thus effectively cancelling plaintiff’s
22
appointments. Plaintiff claims defendant extended his Tylenol #3 prescription several times
23
without examining him, but suddenly cut off the prescription on June 4, 2015, three days after
24
plaintiff filed a grievance complaining about defendant’s failure to treat him. Plaintiff alleges the
25
proximity in time between these two events shows that defendant refused to renew the
26
27
28
1
Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of the motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 32-1) references both a six-week delay and a six-month delay. The court
assumes references to a six-month delay are due to typographical error.
2
1
prescription in retaliation for plaintiff filing a grievance. He further alleges that he was not seen
2
for a medical appointment on June 25, 2015, but instead he and defendant discussed the grievance
3
complaining about defendant’s failure to treat him following the fall.
4
Plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment consists of plaintiff’s
5
response to defendant’s statement of undisputed facts and a single exhibit containing two
6
examples of a priority ducat.
7
While “[p]ro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other
8
litigants,” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted), overruled on
9
other grounds, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), it is well-
10
established that the pleadings of pro se litigants are held to “less stringent standards than formal
11
pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curium). The
12
unrepresented prisoners’ choice to proceed without counsel “is less than voluntary” and they are
13
subject to “the handicaps . . . detention necessarily imposes upon a litigant,” such as “limited
14
access to legal materials” as well as “sources of proof.” Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-
15
65 &n.4 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Inmate litigants,
16
therefore, should not be held to a standard of “strict literalness” with respect to the requirements
17
of the summary judgment rule. Id. at 1364 n.4 (citation omitted).
18
The court is mindful of the Ninth Circuit’s more overarching caution in this context, as
19
noted above, that district courts are to “construe liberally motion papers and pleadings filed by
20
pro se inmates and should avoid applying summary judgment rules strictly.” Thomas v. Ponder,
21
611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the court considers the record before it in its
22
entirety despite plaintiff’s failure to be in strict compliance with the applicable rules. However,
23
only those assertions in the opposition which have evidentiary support in the record will be
24
considered.
25
26
27
28
LEGAL STANDARDS
I.
Summary Judgment Standards under Rule 56
Summary Judgment is appropriate when the moving party “shows there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
3
1
Civ. P. 56(a). Under summary judgment practice, “[t]he moving party “initially bears the burden
2
of proving the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litigation,
3
627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)).
4
The moving party may accomplish this by “citing to particular parts of the materials in the record,
5
including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations,
6
stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory
7
answers, or other materials” or by showing that such materials “do not establish the absence or
8
presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to
9
support the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A), (B).
10
When the non-moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, “the moving party need
11
only prove that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Oracle
12
Corp., 627 F.3d at 387 (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B).
13
Indeed, summary judgment should be entered, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion,
14
against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element
15
essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See
16
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the
17
nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Id. In such a
18
circumstance, summary judgment should be granted, “so long as whatever is before the district
19
court demonstrates that the standard for entry of summary judgment . . . is satisfied.” Id. at 323.
20
If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden shifts to the opposing party
21
to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. See Matsushita Elec.
22
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In attempting to establish the
23
existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party typically may not rely upon the allegations or
24
denials of its pleadings but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the form of
25
affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the dispute
26
exists. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11. The opposing party must
27
demonstrate that the fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the
28
suit under the governing law, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986);
4
1
T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987), and
2
that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict
3
for the nonmoving party, see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
4
In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not
5
establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the claimed factual
6
dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at
7
trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 630. Thus, the “purpose of summary judgment is to ‘pierce
8
the pleadings and assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.’”
9
Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citations omitted).
10
“In evaluating the evidence to determine whether there is a genuine issue of fact,” the
11
court draws “all reasonable inferences supported by the evidence in favor of the non-moving
12
party.” Walls v. Central Contra Costa Transit Auth., 653 F.3d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing
13
Guidroz—Brault v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 254 F.3d 825, 829 (9th Cir. 2001)). It is the opposing
14
party’s obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. See
15
Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 810 F.2d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 1987). Finally, to demonstrate a
16
genuine issue, the opposing party “must do more than simply show that there is some
17
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a
18
rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.”
19
Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
20
II.
21
Deliberate Indifference in Violation of the Eighth Amendment
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishments.” U.S.
22
Const. amend. VIII. The unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain constitutes cruel and unusual
23
punishment by the Eighth Amendment. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986); Ingraham
24
v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 670 (1977); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976). Neither
25
accident nor negligence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, as “[i]t is obduracy and
26
wantonness, not inadvertence or error in good faith, that characterize the conduct prohibited by
27
the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 319.
28
////
5
1
If a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claim arises in the context of medical care, the prisoner
2
must allege and prove “acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference
3
to serious medical needs.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. An Eighth Amendment medical claim has
4
two elements: “the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the nature of the defendant’s
5
response to that need.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992) overruled on
6
other grounds by WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997).
7
“Examples of serious medical needs include ‘[t]he existence of an injury that a reasonable
8
doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or treatment; the presence of a
9
medical condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily activities; or the existence of
10
chronic and substantial pain.’” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (quoting McGuckin, 974
11
F.2d at 1059-60). By establishing the existence of a serious medical need, a prisoner satisfies the
12
objective requirement for proving an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
13
825, 834 (1994).
14
If a prisoner establishes the existence of a serious medical need, he must then show that
15
prison officials responded to the serious medical need with deliberate indifference. See Farmer,
16
511 U.S. at 834. In general, deliberate indifference may be shown when prison officials deny,
17
delay, or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or may be shown by the way in which
18
prison officials provide medical care. Hutchison v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir.
19
1988).
20
Before it can be said that a prisoner’s civil rights have been violated with regard to
21
medical care, “the indifference to his medical needs must be substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’
22
‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter
23
Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06); see also
24
Toguchi v. Soon Hwang Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Mere negligence in
25
diagnosing or treating a medical condition, without more, does not violate a prisoner’s Eighth
26
Amendment rights.”); McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059 (same). Deliberate indifference is a “state of
27
mind more blameworthy than negligence” and “requires ‘more than ordinary lack of due care for
28
////
6
1
the prisoner’s interest or safety.’” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835 (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S.
2
312, 319 (1986)).
3
Delays in providing medical care may manifest deliberate indifference. Estelle, 429 U.S.
4
at 104-05. To establish a claim of deliberate indifference arising from delay in providing care, a
5
plaintiff must show that the delay was harmful. See Berry v. Bunnell, 39 F.3d 1056, 1057 (9th
6
Cir. 1994); McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059; Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir.
7
1990); Hunt v. Dental Dep’t, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir. 1989); Shapley v. Nevada Bd. Of State
8
Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). In this regard, “[a] prisoner need not show
9
his harm was substantial; however, such would provide additional support for the inmate’s claim
10
that the defendant was deliberately indifferent to his needs.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096
11
(9th Cir. 2006) (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060).
12
Finally, mere differences of opinion between a prisoner and prison medical staff or
13
between medical professionals as to the proper course of treatment for a medical condition do not
14
give rise to a § 1983 claim. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058; Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330,
15
332 (9th Cir. 1996); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin v. Oregon, 662
16
F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).
17
18
III.
Retaliation in Violation of the First Amendment
“Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five
19
basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2)
20
because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s
21
exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate
22
correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote and
23
citations omitted).
24
Under the first element, plaintiff need not prove that the alleged retaliatory action, it itself,
25
violated a constitutional right. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (to prevail on a
26
retaliation claim, plaintiff need not “establish an independent constitutional interest” was
27
violated); see also Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 269 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[P]risoners may still base
28
retaliation claims on harms that would not raise due process concerns.”); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778
7
1
F.2d 527, 531 (9th Cir. 1985) (transfer of prisoner to a different prison constituted adverse action
2
for purposes of retaliation claim). The interest cognizable in a retaliation claim is the right to be
3
free of conditions that would not have been imposed but for the alleged retaliatory motive.
4
However, not every allegedly adverse action is sufficient to support a claim for retaliation under §
5
1983. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012) (harm must be “more than
6
minimal”); see also Bell v. Johnson, 308 F.3d 594, 603 (6th Cir. 2002) (“[S]ome adverse actions
7
are so de minimus that they do not give rise to constitutionally cognizable injuries.”).
8
To prove the second element, retaliatory motive, plaintiff must show that his protected
9
activities were a “substantial” or “motivating” factor behind the defendant’s challenged conduct.
10
Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1271 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Soranno’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan,
11
874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989)). Plaintiff must prove direct or circumstantial evidence of
12
defendant’s alleged retaliatory motive; mere speculation is not sufficient. See McCollum v. Cal.
13
Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 647 F.3d 870, 882-83 (9th Cir. 2011); accord Wood v. Yordy, 753
14
F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2014). In addition to demonstrating defendant’s knowledge of plaintiff’s
15
protected conduct, circumstantial evidence of motive may include: (1) proximity in time between
16
the protected conduct and the alleged retaliation; (2) defendant’s expressed opposition to the
17
protected conduct; and (3) other evidence showing that defendant’s reasons for the challenged
18
action were false or pretextual. McCollum, 647 F.3d at 882 (quoting Allen v. Iranon, 283 F.3d
19
1070, 1077 (9th Cir. 2002)).
20
The third element includes prisoners’ First Amendment right of access to the courts.
21
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996). While prisoners have no freestanding right to a prison
22
grievance process, Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003), “a prisoner’s
23
fundamental right of access to the courts hinges on his ability to access the prison grievance
24
system,” Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th Cir. 1995), overruled on other grounds by
25
Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 230 n.2 (2001). Because filing administrative grievances and
26
initiating civil litigation are protected activities, it is impermissible for prison officials to retaliate
27
against prisoners for engaging in these activities. Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 567.
28
////
8
1
Under the fourth element, plaintiff need not demonstrate a “total chilling of his First
2
Amendment rights,” only that defendant’s challenged conduct “would chill or silence a person of
3
ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities.” Id. at 568-69 (emphasis in original,
4
citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, direct and tangible harm will support a
5
retaliation claim even without demonstration of a chilling effect on the further exercise of a
6
prisoner’s First Amendment rights. Id. at 567 n.11. “[A] plaintiff who fails to allege a chilling
7
effect may still state a claim if he alleges he suffered some other harm” as a retaliatory adverse
8
action. Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1269 (citing Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 568 n.11).
9
Regarding the fifth element, the Ninth Circuit has held that preserving institutional order,
10
discipline, and security are legitimate penological goals that, if they provide the motivation for an
11
official act taken, will defeat a claim of retaliation. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.
12
1994) (citing Rizzo, 778 F.2d at 532). When considering this final factor, courts should “‘afford
13
appropriate deference and flexibility’ to prison officials in the evaluation of proffered legitimate
14
penological reasons for conduct alleged to be retaliatory.” Pratt, 65 F.3d at 807 (quoting Sandin
15
v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482 (1995)). Plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving the
16
absence of legitimate correctional goals for defendant’s challenged conduct. Id. at 806.
17
IV.
Qualified Immunity
18
“Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct
19
violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.’” Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895,
20
910 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). When a court is
21
presented with a qualified immunity defense, the central questions for the court are: (1) whether
22
the facts alleged, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, demonstrate that the
23
defendant’s conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue
24
was “clearly established.” Sauceir v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001), receded from, Pearson v.
25
Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (the two factors set out in Saucier need not be considered in
26
sequence). “Qualified immunity gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable
27
but mistaken judgments about open legal questions.” Ashcroft v. al—Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 743
28
(2011). The existence of triable issues of fact as to whether prison officials were deliberately
9
1
indifferent does not necessarily preclude qualified immunity. Estate of Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer,
2
301 F.3d 1043, 1053 (9th Cir. 2002).
3
“For the second step in the qualified immunity analysis—whether the constitutional right
4
was clearly established at the time of the conduct—the critical question is whether the contours of
5
the right were ‘sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable official would have understood that what
6
he is doing violates that right.’” Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433, 442 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting
7
Ashcroft v. al—Kidd,563 U.S. at 741 (some internal marks omitted)). “The plaintiff bears the
8
burden to show that the contours of the right were clearly established.” Clairmont v. Sound
9
Mental Health, 632 F.3d 1091, 1109 (9th Cir. 2011). “[D]etermining whether the law was clearly
10
established must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general
11
proposition.” Estate of Ford, 301 F.3d at 1050 (citation and internal marks omitted). In making
12
this determination, courts consider the state of the law at the time of the alleged violation and the
13
information possessed by the official to determine whether a reasonable official in a particular
14
factual situation should have been on notice that his or her conduct was illegal. Inouye v. Kemna,
15
504 F.3d 705, 712 (9th Cir. 2007); Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002) (the “salient
16
question” to the qualified immunity analysis is whether the state of the law at the time gave “fair
17
warning” to the officials that their conduct was unconstitutional). “[W]here there is no case
18
directly on point, ‘existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question
19
beyond debate.’” C.B. v. City of Sonora, 769 F.3d 1005, 1026 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing al—Kidd,
20
563 U.S. at 740). An official’s subjective beliefs are irrelevant. Inouye, 504 F.3d at 712.
21
22
23
MATERIAL FACTS
I.
Undisputed Facts
At all relevant times plaintiff was an inmate incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison
24
(“MCSP”). At all relevant times defendant was employed as a medical doctor whose primary
25
duty was to provide medical care and treatment to inmates at MCSP. (Defendant’s Statement of
26
Undisputed Facts (“DSUF”) (ECF No. 32-2) ¶ 2; Plaintiff’s Response (“Pl’s Resp.”) (ECF No.
27
34) at 1.) Defendant was plaintiff’s assigned primary care provider (“PCP”) while plaintiff was
28
housed at MCSP. (DSUF (ECF No. 32-2) ¶ 5; Pl’s Resp. (ECF No. 34) at 6.)
10
1
Plaintiff was injured in a fall at work on May 14, 2015. (DSUF (ECF No. 32-2) ¶ 3; Pl’s
2
Resp. (ECF No. 34) at 1.) After the fall, plaintiff filed numerous health care services request
3
forms requesting to see defendant, his PCP, and requests to renew his Tylenol #3 prescription.
4
(DSUF (ECF No. 32-2) ¶ 3; Pl’s Resp. (ECF No. 34) at 4, 6, 7, 8.) Plaintiff was prescribed
5
Tylenol #3 from May 14, 2015 to June 4, 2015, approximately three weeks. (DSUF (ECF No.
6
32-2) ¶ 9; Pl’s Resp. (ECF No. 34) at 5-6.) Plaintiff filed a grievance on June 1, 2015,
7
complaining that he had not been seen by defendant for a follow-up appointment. (DSUF (ECF
8
No. 32-2) ¶ 9; Pl’s Resp. (ECF No. 34) at 6.) On June 4, 2015, defendant reviewed plaintiff’s
9
request to renew his Tylenol #3 prescription and declined to renew the medication. (DSUF (ECF
10
No. 32-2) ¶ 9; Pl’s Resp. (ECF No. 34) at 6.) Plaintiff met with defendant on June 25, 2015, and
11
as a result of the meeting, defendant referred plaintiff for x-rays and to see a specialist. (DSUF
12
(ECF No. 32-2) ¶ 3; Pl’s Resp. (ECF No. 34) at 1-3.)
13
14
II.
Disputed Facts
The parties dispute the adequacy of defendant’s response to plaintiff’s requests for pain
15
medication and for a follow-up appointment, the nature of the June 25, 2015 meeting, and when
16
defendant found out plaintiff filed a grievance regarding defendant’s failure to see him for a
17
follow-up appointment.
18
Defendant claims he had no control over scheduling appointments and any delay in
19
treatment was due to scheduling issues. (DSUF (ECF No. 32-2) ¶¶ 5, 6, 7.) Plaintiff contends
20
defendant could have overridden the scheduler by issuing plaintiff a ducat or having plaintiff
21
paged directly. (Pl’s Resp. (ECF No. 34) at 3-4.) Defendant characterizes the June 25, 2015
22
meeting as a medical appointment. (DSUF (ECF No. 32-2) ¶11.) However, plaintiff
23
characterizes it as an interview regarding his June 1, 2015 grievance and claims he was not
24
treated until he began receiving physical therapy in September 2015. (Pl’s Resp. (ECF No. 34) at
25
1-2.) Defendant maintains he was not aware plaintiff filed a grievance regarding his request for a
26
follow-up appointment when he reviewed plaintiff’s request to renew his Tylenol #3 prescription.
27
(DSUF (ECF No. 32-2) ¶ 9.) Plaintiff claims defendant must have been aware of the grievance
28
when he reviewed the request. (Pl’s Resp. (ECF No. 34) at 6-7.)
11
1
2
ANALYSIS
I.
Deliberate Indifference
3
Defendant argues he did not cause the delay in treatment and the delay did not cause
4
plaintiff substantial harm. Plaintiff responds that defendant could have done more to ensure
5
plaintiff was seen and treated and that he remained in debilitating pain because of the delay.
6
The Ninth Circuit has recognized that a purposeful failure to respond to an inmate’s pain
7
can amount to an Eighth Amendment violation. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.
8
2006). Plaintiff produced numerous health care request forms notifying prison officials he was in
9
severe pain for weeks after his fall. (ECF No. 18 at 15-16, 20-21, 23, 26-27, 30-32, 34, 36-37,
10
40-42, 45-47, 49-51, 54-57, 59-65, 68-75, 78-79, 81-83, 101.) Defendant has not claimed he was
11
unaware of plaintiff’s requests for a medical appointment. Even if defendant was unaware of
12
plaintiff’s attempts to get a follow-up appointment, he was aware plaintiff claimed he was in
13
severe pain because he reviewed plaintiff’s requests for renewal of his Tylenol #3 prescription.
14
Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as required at the summary
15
judgment stage, defendant has failed to show there is no dispute regarding any material fact.
16
Plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence to support an inference that defendant was aware
17
plaintiff was in severe pain and failed to respond. Defendant states he had no control over the
18
scheduling of appointments; however, plaintiff alleges defendant could have issued a ducat
19
bypassing the scheduler and ensuring plaintiff received a follow-up appointment. By alleging
20
there was some action defendant could have taken and did not, plaintiff has established a dispute
21
regarding the adequacy of defendant’s response to plaintiff’s complaints of severe pain. See
22
McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060 (stating that deliberate indifference may be established if a
23
defendant “purposefully ignore[s] or fail[s] to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical
24
need”). Accordingly, the court will recommend denial of defendant’s motion for summary
25
judgment on plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim.
26
27
28
II.
Retaliation
Plaintiff argues defendant retaliated against him by cutting off his pain medication shortly
after plaintiff filed a grievance complaining about defendant’s refusal to see him for a follow-up
12
1
appointment. Defendant argues he was not aware of the grievance when he made the decision not
2
to renew the medication and that his decision not to renew the prescription was based on his
3
medical opinion that the side effects associated with long term use outweighed any benefit.
4
In order to show that defendant’s adverse action was “because of” plaintiff’s protected
5
conduct, plaintiff must first show that defendant was aware of plaintiff’s protected conduct.
6
Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 568 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, defendant has stated he was
7
unaware that plaintiff named him in a grievance when he made the decision not to renew
8
plaintiff’s prescription. In his opposition, plaintiff argues that defendant must have known about
9
the grievance because once a grievance is processed the parties begin preparing for the hearing.
10
(ECF No. 34 at 7.) However, plaintiff’s speculation that defendant must have known about the
11
grievance is not sufficient to create a material issue of fact sufficient to deny the motion for
12
summary judgment. See Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2014) (“We have
13
repeatedly held that mere speculation that defendants acted out of retaliation is not sufficient.”);
14
Nelson v. Pima Cmty. College, 83 F.3d 1075, 1081-82 (1996) (citation omitted) (“[M]ere
15
allegation and speculation do not create a factual dispute for purposes of summary judgment.”).
16
The court will grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s retaliation
17
claim because plaintiff has failed to show there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding
18
defendant’s knowledge of plaintiff’s protected conduct. See Halloum v. Ryan, No. CV 11—0097
19
PHX RCB, 2014 WL 1047144 at *7 (D. Ariz. Mar. 18, 2014) (granting summary judgment where
20
plaintiff submitted no probative evidence that defendant was aware of plaintiff’s protected
21
conduct). Because there is no genuine issue of fact on this element of the retaliation claim, the
22
court need not analyze the remaining elements of the claim. Id.
23
Further, defendant argues he made the decision to deny the renewal request based on his
24
medical opinion that the side effects associated with long term use of Tylenol #3 outweighed any
25
benefit of plaintiff continuing on the medication. Thus, he has shown there was a legitimate non-
26
retaliatory motive for his action. Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S.
27
274, 287 (1977) (The defendant may prevail if he shows that he would have reached the same
28
////
13
1
decision absent the protected conduct.). Accordingly, the court will recommend a grant of
2
defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s retaliation claim.
3
III.
4
5
Analysis of Qualified Immunity
Defendant argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions were objectively
reasonable under the circumstances.
6
It was clearly established in 2015 that a prison official could be deliberately indifferent to
7
an inmate’s pain in violation of the Eighth Amendment by failing to respond appropriately to an
8
injury. The facts are disputed about whether defendant responded adequately to plaintiff’s pain
9
and requests for an appointment with his PCP. Defendant has not met his burden of
10
demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the reasonableness
11
of his actions in response to plaintiff’s complaints of pain and requests to see his doctor. These
12
factual issues are sufficient to defeat summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity.
13
See Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970); see also Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley, 988
14
F.2d 868, 873 (9th Cir. 1993) (if there is a genuine dispute as to the facts and circumstances
15
within a prison official’s knowledge, or what the prison official “did or failed to do,” summary
16
judgment on qualified immunity is not appropriate).
17
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO ADD A DEFENDANT
18
To the extent that plaintiff argues for the first time in his opposition to defendant’s motion
19
for summary judgment that he would like to bring a claim against the MCSP scheduler for
20
deliberate indifference, he is advised that the opposition to a motion for summary judgment is not
21
a proper vehicle for adding new claims to his complaint. Further, plaintiff may not amend his
22
complaint at the summary judgment stage of these proceedings. See Gilmour v. Gates,
23
McDonald & Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1314-15 (11th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the court will
24
recommend denial of plaintiff’s request to add the unidentified scheduler as a defendant in this
25
matter.
26
////
27
////
28
////
14
1
CONCLUSION
2
For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED th
3
1. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32) be granted in part and denied
4
in part as follows:
5
a. Defendant’s motion on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference
6
claim be denied;
7
b. Defendant’s motion on plaintiff’s First Amendment claim be granted; and
8
9
10
11
12
13
2.
c. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the defense of
qualified immunity be denied. Plaintiff’s request to add the unidentified MCSP
scheduler as a defendant in this matter be denied; and
3. The case shall proceed solely on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference
claim.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
14
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days
15
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
16
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
17
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
18
objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
19
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
20
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
21
Dated: February 7, 2018
22
23
24
25
26
DLB12
DLB1/Orders/Prisoner-civil rights/terh1738.msj
27
28
15
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?