Smith v. Lim-Javate et al

Filing 21

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/15/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/15/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ANTHONY SMITH,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-01278-SI
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTARY
EVIDENCE

v.
ROSANA LIM-JAVATE, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 17-3

Defendants.

12
13

In this pro se prisoner’s civil rights action, plaintiff claims that the two defendant-doctors

14

were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs when they denied requests for services (RFS) for

15

plaintiff to see an outside orthopedist. Defendants now move for summary judgment, and plaintiff

16

opposes that motion. Defendants’ motion has some evidentiary shortfalls that they will be given

17

an opportunity to cure because it is not a good use of judicial resources to hold a trial simply

18

because a party has presented inadequate evidence on a motion for summary judgment yet it

19

appears that the evidentiary shortfalls can be cured with a little effort.

20

First, defendants present incomplete medical records for Smith. Defendants argue that

21

their medical decisions were justified and point to certain medical records in support of their

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

decisions. But the medical records submitted to the court lack some of the documents relied upon
by defendants to make their challenged decisions. Defendants therefore must file and serve a copy
of the following documents (with an appropriate authenticating declaration) in a supplement to
their motion for summary judgment:
(a) Dr. Kowall’s report from a February 18, 2015 consultation in which he
recommended referral to a tertiary care center, that was attached to the February 28, 2015 RFS.
See Docket No. 17-7 at 20.

1

(b) the EMG/NCS reports that were attached to the February 28, 2015 RFS. See id.

2

(c) the February 20, 2015 progress notes referred to in the March 17, 2015 RFS.

3

See id. at 22.
(d) the notes and reports generated when Smith’s case was presented to the Medical

4
5

Authorization Review Committee in or about March or April 2015. See id. at 23.1

6

Second, defendants’ evidence that Smith did not exhaust his administrative remedies for

7

his claim against Dr. Bright is in the wrong form and is insufficient to show entitlement to

8

summary judgment. Defendants present the administrative appeal records as attachments to a

9

request for judicial notice in which they request that the court to take judicial notice that Smith

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

filed one inmate appeal on July 27, 2014, and another one on June 21, 2015. Docket No. 17-3.
The court can judicially notice facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute in that they are
generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the court or they are capable of ready
determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R.
Evid. 201(b). The CDCR’s records of a prisoner’s inmate appeals, and the fact that an inmate
has filed inmate appeals, are not judicially noticeable because they are subject to reasonable
dispute. The request for judicial notice therefore is DENIED. Docket No. 17-3. Although the
existence and content of inmate appeal records are not judicially noticeable, the CDCR’s records
of plaintiff's inmate appeals can be presented as an attachment to a declaration from a custodian
of records. In prior cases, prison personnel represented by the California Attorney General’s
Office have been able to successfully show non-exhaustion with (a) a declaration from a

20
custodian of records presenting and authenticating copies of the administrative appeals that do
21
22
23
24

exist, and (b) a declaration from some knowledgeable witness who declares that he/she has
searched the CDCR’s records and found no other administrative appeals that received a third level
decision concerning the subject matter of the lawsuit (and presents a printout showing appeals that
have been filed by an inmate and the outcome of those appeals).

25
26
1

27
28

It appears that prison officials took the position that the MAR committee documents were
not part of Smith’s medical records when he attempted to obtain a copy of them. For the pending
motion for summary judgment, defendants need to provide a copy of those documents, wherever
the documents are stored and however they are labeled.
2

1

Defendants must file and serve the supplementary evidence no later than September 8,

2

2017. Plaintiff must file and serve any response or opposition to the evidence, as well as any

3

additional evidence he has, no later than September 25, 2017.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 15, 2017
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3