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)

Download PDF
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?