Gaxiola v. Jacques et al

Filing 32

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Sue Risenhoover, K. Vail, M. Sayre. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 7/9/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JOSEPH E. GAXIOLA,

9

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

NO. C 13-1989 WHA (PR)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

v.
DR. M. SAYRE; F.N.P. SUE
RISENHOOVER; DR. C. WILLIAMS;
R.N. K. VAIL,

(Docket No. 37)
13

Defendants.
/

14
15

INTRODUCTION

16

This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983 by a state prisoner proceeding pro

17

se. Plaintiff claims that defendants Dr. M. Sayre, F.N.P. Sue Risenhoover, Dr. C. Williams, and

18

R.N. K. Vail, all employees of the California prison, violated his Eighth Amendment rights by

19

failing to provide adequate medical care when he was at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”).

20

Defendants move for summary judgment, plaintiff has opposed the motion, and defendants have

21

replied. For the reasons set out below, defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

22

STATEMENT

23

The following facts are not in dispute, unless otherwise noted.

24

In 2008, plaintiff fell down in his prison cell and was escorted to an outside hospital,

25

where he received treatment for a closed head injury (Compl. 8; Defs. Mot. Summ. J. (“MSJ”)

26

Ex. N). According to plaintiff, he suffered a seizure in this incident (Compl. 8). However, the

27

examining doctor assessed the incident as a “mechanical fall” because a CT scan and an EKG

28

did not show that a seizure had occurred (MSJ, Ex. N at 3). A doctor later evaluated plaintiff

1

further for indications of a seizure, but he showed normal endocrine, neurological and cardiac

2

systems that did not indicate seizure activity (MSJ, Ex. O at 3). In November of 2008, plaintiff

3

was seen by a neurologist for further evaluation, but he showed normal results from MRI scans

4

of his brain and spine (MSJ, Ex. CC at 18-19). The neurologist recommended that plaintiff

5

receive an EEG, which was performed in December and produced normal results (MSJ, Ex. M).

6

In April 2009, plaintiff was found lying on his cell floor with a cut on his head (Sayre

had a seizure in the ambulance (id. 5). Plaintiff was prescribed anti-seizure medication and

9

admitted into the PBSP’s treatment center by defendant R.N. Risenhoover (MSJ, Ex. Q). Later

10

that month, plaintiff told defendant Dr. Williams that he had stopped taking the medication due

11
For the Northern District of California

Decl. at 4). Plaintiff was then transported to an emergency room for treatment, and en route he

8

United States District Court

7

to an allergic reaction, so Williams prescribed a different anti-seizure medication to which

12

plaintiff reported no allergic reactions (MSJ, Ex. S). When plaintiff complained to Williams of

13

chest pain in June, Williams ordered a treadmill stress test, but the test reported no

14

abnormalities (ibid). In December, the Medical Authorization Review (“MAR”) Committee,

15

chaired by defendant Sayre, elected to discontinue plaintiff’s anti-seizure medication after a

16

“thorough review of the record” (id. at 18).

17

In early 2010, plaintiff received a padded helmet in order to protect his head in case of

18

another seizure (Compl. 13). In June 2010, plaintiff reported to defendant R.N. Vail that he had

19

experienced a seizure and had stopped wearing his helmet because it was too big, and defendant

20

Vail instructed him to wear the helmet in order to protect himself (MSJ, Ex. T at 5). Plaintiff

21

was then examined by defendant Williams, who requested a psychological consult based on her

22

suspicions that plaintiff’s seizures were psychological rather than physiological (id. 6).

23

In October 2010, plaintiff complained of headaches and photosensitivity to defendant

24

Vail, who prescribed him Ibuprofen and referred him to an optometrist in order to ascertain the

25

cause of his headaches (id. 12). On November 5, 2010, defendant Vail examined plaintiff again

26

and he was prescribed Tylenol for his headaches by Dr. Adam, who is not a defendant (id. 15).

27

Later that day, plaintiff reported having another seizure (Compl. 14). A PBSP doctor

28

prescribed plaintiff more anti-seizure medication (MSJ, Ex. T at 17). At that point, defendant
2

1

Williams elected to set up a chronic care checkup for plaintiff, whereupon he would be

2

examined every six months to monitor any seizure activity (MSJ, Ex. T at 17).

3

In 2011, plaintiff complained to defendant Williams about his headaches, who

4

prescribed Tylenol and Indocin (MSJ, Ex. U at 1-2). In addition, defendant Williams ordered

5

sinus films in an attempt to pinpoint the source of plaintiff’s headaches (MSJ, Ex. U at 2).

6

Throughout 2011, plaintiff intermittently reported seizures and headaches to prison medical

7

staff, who consistently renewed his anti-seizure and headache medications (MSJ, Ex. U).

8

Plaintiff was also examined by optometrists, who attempted to diagnose the cause of his

9

headaches several times and gave plaintiff medical advice on how to manage his headaches and
light sensitivity (MSJ, Ex. U at 9, 12). In August, he was prescribed new medication for his

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

headaches, and offered bifocals by the optometry clinic, which he declined (id. 17-18).

12

In 2012 and 2013, plaintiff began reporting an improvement in his headaches (MSJ, Ex.

13

V at 1). Throughout 2012 and 2013, plaintiff was regularly seen by doctors and prescribed

14

medication for his headaches and to prevent seizures (MSJ, Ex. V; Ex. W). Plaintiff was also

15

seen by the optometry clinic several times and eventually given glasses (MSJ, Ex. W). Plaintiff

16

last reported seizures in April 2013, when he told medical staff he had experienced two seizures

17

in the prior six months (Sayre Decl. 12).

18
19

Plaintiff claims that defendants violated the Eighth Amendment and were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs.

20
21
22

ANALYSIS
A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show that

23

there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to

24

judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Material facts are those which may affect

25

the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,248 (1986). A dispute

26

as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a

27

verdict for the nonmoving party.

28

The moving party for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those
3

1

portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence of a genuine

2

issue of material fact. Celotex Corp.v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). When the moving

3

party has met this burden of production, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings

4

and, by its own affidavits or discovery, set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine

5

issue for trial. If the nonmoving party fails to produce enough evidence to show a genuine issue

6

of material fact, the moving party wins. Ibid.

7

B.

8

Plaintiff claims that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical

9

needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment because they inadequately treated his seizure

ANALYSIS

disorder and chronic headaches. Deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

violates the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v.

12

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A serious medical need exists if the failure to treat a

13

prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton

14

infliction of pain. See ibid. A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows that a

15

prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take

16

reasonable steps to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Neither negligence

17

nor gross negligence will constitute deliberate indifference. Id. at 835-36 & n.4 (1994).

18

plaintiff claims defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by not

19

diagnosing his seizure disorder until 2009 and then treating him poorly following the diagnosis;

20

his seizure medication was improperly discontinued in 2009; and he was denied proper

21

treatment for his headaches and photosensitivity issues.

22

First, the evidence establishes that defendants were not deliberately indifferent to

23

treating his seizures prior to and following his first observed seizure in 2009. Plaintiff asserts

24

that he had a seizure disorder in 2008, but the medical records show no medical evidence that

25

he suffered from seizures until 2009. After he fell in 2008, a doctor at Sutter Coast Hospital

26

assessed plaintiff’s fall as a “mechanical fall” because his CT scan was negative (MSJ, Ex. N at

27

3). Plaintiff was seen by a number of doctors and a neurologist, and he received extensive

28

further testing, including MRIs, an EEG, and an evaluation of his endocrine, neurological and
4

1

cardiac systems, none of which showed evidence of a seizure disorder (MSJ, Ex. N). Plaintiff

2

presents no evidence that his tests were misread, that there was a need to perform additional

3

tests, or that a reasonable doctor would have had any basis for diagnosing him with a seizure

4

disorder prior the incident in 2009, when he was seen suffering a seizure by medical personnel.

5
6

Once this seizure was observed, moreover, he was promptly diagnosed with and

7

prescribed medication for a seizure disorder (MSJ, Ex. Q at 4). Plaintiff was prescribed

8

Dilantin for his seizures, but was later prescribed Tegretol by defendant Williams when he

9

claimed to be allergic to Dilantin (MSJ, Ex. S). Since 2009, plaintiff was seen regularly by
defendant Dr. Williams and other medical staff in order to monitor his condition (ibid). When

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

plaintiff complained to Williams of chest pain, Williams ordered a treadmill stress test, but the

12

test reported no abnormalities (ibid). Plaintiff’s last reported seizure was in April 2013, when

13

he told medical staff he had experienced two seizures in the prior six months (Sayre Decl. 12).

14

He continues to receive anti-seizure medication and regular appointments with doctors. There

15

is no evidence that the medication, tests, and schedule of evaluations defendants provided were

16

not medically appropriate for his condition. As a result, there is no genuine issue of material

17

fact as to whether any defendant was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s need for treatment for

18

his seizures either prior to or following his seizure diagnosis in 2009.

19

Second, the evidence establishes that defendant Sayre and the MAR Committee did not

20

act with deliberate indifference when by temporarily discontinuing plaintiff’s seizure

21

medication, between December 2009 and November 2010. The decision was based on a review

22

of plaintiff’s medical records, the fact that the plaintiff had not experienced seizures in eight

23

months, had normal EEGs, and had previously been cleared by a neurologist (MSJ, Ex. S at 18;

24

Sayre Decl. at 6). Plaintiff presents no evidence that under these circumstances, it was not

25

medically appropriate to discontinue his seizure medication. His disagreement with medical

26

professionals on this issue, without more, does not create a triable issue of fact as to whether it

27

was medically necessary to continue his anti-seizure medication at that time. See Franklin v.

28

Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (“A difference of opinion between a prisoner5

1

patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a Section 1983

2

claim.").

3

Third, the evidence also establishes that defendants were not deliberately indifferent to

4

plaintiff’s medical needs when they treated his chronic headaches. When plaintiff first

5

complained of headaches, he was promptly prescribed medication and referred to an optometry

6

clinic (MSJ, Ex. T). Plaintiff was tested by both medical doctors and optometrists in order to

7

diagnose the cause of his headaches (ibid). Furthermore, plaintiff was offered glasses in order

8

to curb his photosensitivity, and was routinely tested by optometrists from 2011 onwards (MSJ

9

Ex. U; Ex. V). Plaintiff was also prescribed headache medication several times and given
instructions for how to treat his headaches (MSJ, Ex. U). Medical records clearly indicate that

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

plaintiff had each of his complaints addressed and tested. Plaintiff contends that he “still

12

continues to be denied treatment for his photo-sensitivity,” but there is no evidence supporting

13

this claim given the number of times he has been seen, tested, and prescribed glasses and

14

headache medication by both doctors and optometrists (Resp. to MSJ at 19; MSJ, Ex. V, Ex.

15

W). Plaintiff shows no evidence to indicate that he received inadequate medical treatment for,

16

let alone that there was deliberate indifference to, his headaches.

17

Because there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants were

18

deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s medical needs, defendants are entitled to summary

19

judgment on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims. Defendants’ alternate arguments based on

20

exhaustion and untimeliness need not be addressed.

21
22
23
24

CONCLUSION
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The clerk shall enter
judgment and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
Dated: July
26

6 , 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
6