Smith v. Mack et al
Filing
132
ORDER by Judge Vince Chhabria denying 85 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 96 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 100 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 113 Motion for Summary Judgment. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2015)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
ALONZO SMITH,
Case No. 13-cv-00246-VC
Plaintiff,
8
v.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
9
10
RICHARD MACK, et al.,
Re: Docket Nos. 85, 96, 100, 113
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Introduction
13
Alonzo Smith was a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison. He contends prison officials
14
violated his Eighth Amendment rights by disregarding his need for a special diet while he was
15
healing from a broken jaw. The defendants have moved for summary judgment. Their motions
16
are denied.
17
Background
18
The following is a description of the evidence considered in the light most favorable to
19
20
Smith:
Smith broke his jaw in a fight with another inmate. He was admitted to the prison's
21
Clinical Treatment Center ("CTC"), where a doctor wired his jaw shut. He received a liquid diet
22
while at CTC. Roughly five weeks after the injury, Smith began vomiting, and nurses cut the
23
wires to prevent him from choking. Three days after that, Smith was discharged from CTC to the
24
general prison population. An officer told Smith he was being discharged from CTC due to a
25
shortage of bed space. The officer also told Smith he would receive the same diet in the general
26
population as the one he received at CTC, based on his doctor's order.
27
28
But once Smith was back in the general population, he didn't receive a special diet, and he
experienced extreme pain when he tried to eat food at the prison cafeteria. This was because his
1
jaw was still not healed, and because the nurses at CTC hadn't removed all the wires from his
2
mouth, instead leaving some sharp wires attached to his teeth (which caused him to bleed when he
3
ate). Furthermore, inmates only had 15-20 minutes to eat their meals at the cafeteria; Smith's pain
4
prevented him from eating so fast.
5
For months, Smith asked for help, to no avail. Initially, he went to Officer E. Canchola,
6
who served as a "medical escort officer." Smith told Canchola (based on what he was told when
7
discharged from CTC) that he needed a special diet and that there was a doctor's order for a
8
special diet. Canchola reviewed Smith's records and found an order from Dr. Fernando Tuvera
9
that Smith was to receive a "soft chopped" diet.
10
At the time, Smith did not know what a "soft chopped" diet was. Because an officer at
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
CTC told Smith he'd receive the same diet after discharge, he assumed the order from Dr. Tuvera
12
for a "soft chopped" diet was for the liquid diet he'd been getting at CTC.
13
In any event, Canchola tried to help Smith get his special diet. Canchola presented Smith's
14
primary care physician, Dr. Richard Mack, with the order. Dr. Mack responded that this was a
15
"dental problem" and that he was unable to assist.
16
17
Canchola then asked the nurses at the "A-Facility Clinic" for assistance. The nurses stated
that Smith would have to return to CTC to receive the special diet.
18
Canchola then went with Smith (and with Smith's friend, Joshua Barries) to what Smith
19
calls the "Program Office" and showed the doctor's order to the sergeant on duty. The sergeant
20
sent them to the kitchen.
21
22
23
24
25
Then the group went to the kitchen to try to arrange for Smith's special diet. Kitchen
staffers stated they were unable to prepare the diet.
Canchola then returned with Smith and his friend to the Program Office. The supervisors
at the office declined to assist, stating that it was a medical problem.
At this point, Canchola told Smith he would have to return to CTC if he wished to receive
26
a special diet. Canchola then called CTC and tried to send Smith back, but a CTC staff member
27
said that Smith could not return because there was no more bed space, and said that Smith should
28
just "do the best [he] can to eat."
2
1
A couple of days after Smith's discharge from CTC, Canchola brought the order to Dr.
2
Vaun Munk, a dentist at the prison. But Dr. Munk responded, "There's nothing I can do." At a
3
dental appointment a few days later, Smith showed Dr. Munk the order, said he was in extreme
4
pain and unable to chew his food, and asked for his help getting the diet he'd been prescribed. Dr.
5
Munk refused to assist, and told Smith that "the pain you have is the pain you're gonna have."
6
(Six months later, Dr. Munk finally requested a special diet for Smith, but the Chief Medical
7
Executive, Anise Adams, denied that request, explaining that "[the prison] has no soft diets on the
8
yards.")
9
Also during the first week following discharge, Smith submitted a "Health Care Services
Request Form" in which he complained of being in constant pain and not receiving proper meals.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
The supervising dentist, Dr. John Adamo, reviewed the request but took no action.
12
Roughly a month following his discharge, Smith visited Dr. Joerg Wittenberg – the doctor
13
who had wired his jaw shut at CTC. At this visit, and at visits during the next several months,
14
Smith complained of extreme pain, stated he was unable to chew food, and complained he was not
15
receiving the soft food diet the doctor ordered. Dr. Wittenberg conceded to Smith that he needed a
16
special diet. But Dr. Wittenberg said he didn't have the authority to order it.
17
Smith also saw Dr. Mack (the primary care physician Smith had visited while with Officer
18
Canchola) at least two more times in the months following his discharge from CTC. Smith
19
reminded Dr. Mack that he was in pain and couldn't eat the food he was receiving in the general
20
population, but Dr. Mack didn't do anything.
21
Roughly three months after he was discharged from CTC, Smith submitted a "Health Care
22
Appeal" complaining that the doctor had ordered a "soft chopped" diet for him, he wasn't
23
receiving it, he was in constant pain, he couldn't chew properly and his jaw wasn't healing right
24
because he was overworking it trying to eat regular food. In addition to requesting the special
25
diet, Smith requested that he be "cell fed" (that is, given food in his cell rather than having to go to
26
the cafeteria). And he complained he was released from CTC with wires still in his mouth, which
27
hurt him. Mark Ellis, the Chief Executive Officer of Health Care Services at the prison, denied the
28
appeal in part and granted it in part. Although he granted Smith's request to be cell fed, he denied
3
1
the request for a special diet, stating: "There is no special dietary order for 'chopped' food at [the
2
prison], you will have to make do with what is provided to you."
3
Seventeen months after discharge from CTC, Smith was finally treated by an off-site oral
4
surgeon, Dr. Brian Woo, who recommended that Smith receive a soft, "non-chew" diet. At his
5
deposition, Dr. Woo testified that he would have recommended a non-chew diet for at least eight
6
weeks following removal of the wires.
7
Discussion
8
This case is similar to Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000). In Lopez, a doctor
9
ordered that a prisoner receive a liquid diet while healing from a broken jaw. Prison officials were
aware of the order but didn't give the prisoner the liquid diet. The prisoner experienced severe
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
pain as a result, and lost weight because he ultimately couldn't eat the food the prison gave him.
12
The Ninth Circuit concluded this was an Eighth Amendment violation, because the prison
13
officials' refusals to follow the doctor's order reflected a deliberate indifference to the prisoner's
14
serious medical needs. Id. at 1132-33. See also Webb v. Douglas County, 224 Fed.Appx. 647,
15
649 (9th Cir. 2007) ("[A] prison official acts with deliberate indifference when he ignores the
16
instructions of the prisoner's treating physician or surgeon."). Here, taking a view of the evidence
17
most favorable to Smith, numerous prison officials were aware that a doctor had ordered a special
18
diet for him following his discharge from CTC but made no effort to ensure that the order was
19
followed. Instead, they rested on an apparent policy that nobody in the general population was
20
allowed to receive a special diet. But a general policy like that does not give prison officials
21
license to disregard the serious medical needs of a particular prisoner. See, e.g., Jett v. Penner,
22
439 F.3d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir. 2006). If they really couldn't give Smith a special diet in the
23
general population (and if Smith really needed a special diet to eat without severe pain), they
24
needed to find a different place for him.
25
The only real difference between Lopez and this case is that in Lopez the doctor's order for
26
a liquid diet was apparently unambiguous (at least based on the Ninth Circuit's description of the
27
facts). Here, there was confusion about the doctor's order. An officer told Smith upon his
28
discharge from CTC that he would keep getting the same diet, and Smith had been getting a liquid
4
1
diet, so he assumed a doctor had ordered a liquid diet for him. But the order was for a "soft
2
chopped" diet, which sounds different from a liquid diet. The defendants focus heavily on this
3
distinction, noting that plenty of food at the prison cafeteria could be described as "soft" or
4
"chopped" or easily broken up into small pieces. And so, they contend, the prison officials didn't
5
actually deny Smith what his doctor ordered, even if they might have thought they were doing so
6
when they told him that nobody in general population could have a special diet.
But the confusion about the doctor's order doesn't make this case materially different from
7
8
Lopez. The bottom line is that: (i) Smith had a serious medical need; (ii) a special diet would have
9
addressed that serious medical need; (iii) Smith repeatedly requested a special diet, even if he
might not have understood exactly what he was requesting; (iv) a special diet was ordered by his
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
doctor; and (v) the defendants didn't even consider complying with the doctor's order because of
12
an apparent policy that people in the general population can't have special diets. There was
13
ambiguity about precisely what the doctor had ordered, but the defendants were still disregarding a
14
doctor's order in the face of complaints of extreme pain by the patient. And had they attended to
15
Smith's complaints instead of disregarding them, presumably this would have led them to take
16
measures responsive to Smith's serious medical need (such as returning him to CTC or giving him
17
a liquid diet while he resided in the general population). The failure to respond to the doctor's
18
order is deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, even if nobody drilled down to figure
19
out the precise nature of the need.1
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
The defendants are wrong to argue that Smith's current argument that he needed a liquid diet is
different from the argument he made to prison officials during administrative proceedings for a
"soft chopped diet." Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Smith, he assumed his
doctor had ordered the same diet that he received while at CTC. And at its core, his request of the
prison officials was a request to fulfill his doctor's order. This request was sufficient to put prison
officials on notice of the basis for his claim during administrative proceedings. See Griffin v.
Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) ("[T]he primary purpose of a grievance [is] to notify
the prison of a problem."). Similarly, the defendants are wrong to argue that Smith concocted his
story about thinking a "soft chopped" diet was the same one he'd gotten at CTC at the eleventh
hour in a declaration responding to their summary judgment motion. Smith testified the same way
at his deposition.
28
5
1
2
3
And the evidence would, if believed by the jury, support a verdict that each of the named
defendants was responsible for this constitutional violation:
Dr. Mack (Smith's primary care physician) was aware of the doctor's order for a
special diet but stated he couldn't do anything because it was a mere dental
problem.
Dr. Munk (the dentist) was aware of the order but said he could not do anything
because the prison had a policy of not giving special diets in the general population.
It was not until six months after Smith's discharge that Dr. Munk finally requested a
special diet for him (a request that was denied).
Dr. Wittenberg (the doctor who wired Smith's jaw shut and who saw him for
several follow-up visits) said he didn't have the authority to order a special diet for
him in the general population.
Adams (the Chief Medical Executive) denied the request made by Dr. Munk six
months after Smith's discharge, and she did so for the sole reason that soft diets are
not available to people in the general population.
Dr. Adamo (the supervising dentist) was aware that Smith was in pain and was not
receiving the special diet, but he did nothing. In his deposition, Dr. Adamo
testified that he was merely following Dr. Wittenberg's discharge order. But
Wittenberg's order was on the same page as Dr. Tuvera's order prescribing the soft
chopped diet. And Dr. Adamo testified that he knew Smith had requested this soft
food diet, because Smith submitted the Health Care Services Request Form. Yet
Dr. Adamo did not take any steps to ensure Smith was given the special diet.
Ellis (the Chief Executive Officer of Healthcare Services) was aware of the doctor's
order for a special diet but denied Smith's appeal on the sole ground that people in
Smith's situation were not entitled to special diets.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
For similar reasons, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. This is the type
23
of qualified immunity case where a factual dispute that precludes entry of summary judgment on
24
the underlying constitutional question also precludes a finding of qualified immunity at the
25
summary judgment stage. See, e.g., Espinosa v. City and County of San Francisco, 598 F.3d 528,
26
532 (9th Cir. 2010). In other words, if there was a violation at all, it was by definition a clear
27
violation – the deliberate disregard of a doctor's order by prison officials which results in extreme
28
6
1
pain for the patient. It is beyond debate, in light of the Ninth Circuit's rulings in Lopez, Webb, and
2
Jett, that this right existed, so if a jury resolves the factual disputes in Smith's favor, the defendants
3
violated a right that was clearly established.
4
Conclusion
5
The summary judgment motions are denied. The parties are ordered to appear at a case
6
management conference on July 7, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. An updated joint case management
7
conference statement is due 7 days prior to the case management conference.
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 19, 2015
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
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?