Edwards v. Branch et al

Filing 33

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NOs. 23 & 32) by Judge Charles R. Breyer: Granting 23 Motion for Summary Judgment. (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DARWIN C. EDWARDS, AH9825,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

Case No. 16-cv-06668-CRB (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF Nos. 23 & 32)

10

ROSELLE BRANCH, M.D.,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiff Darwin C. Edwards, a prisoner currently incarcerated at California State Prison,

12
13

Corcoran (CSP – Corcoran), filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging inadequate

14

medical care while he was incarcerated at: (1) the California Training Facility (CTF) from early

15

2014 through January 2016, (2) Chuckawalla Valley State Prison (CVSP) from January 2016

16

through September 2016, and (3) Valley State Prison (VSP) from September 2016 through

17

November 2016. Plaintiff was transferred to CSP – Corcoran shortly after he filed this action.

18

Per order filed on May 24, 2017, the court (Ryu, M.J.) found that plaintiff’s allegations

19

that, while he was incarcerated at CTF, Dr. Roselle Branch failed to treat his right sided

20

inflammation and pain state a cognizable § 1983 claim for damages against Dr. Branch for

21

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and ordered

22

the United States Marshal to serve Dr. Branch at CTF. The court dismissed plaintiff’s claims for

23

damages against the named prison officials at CVSP and VSP without prejudice to filing in the

24
25

proper venue (Central District and Eastern District, respectively) and dismissed as moot any
claims for injunctive relief against the named prison officials at CTF, CVSP and VSP.1

26
1

27
28

Although the magistrate judge dismissed claims without the consent of all named defendants, the
undersigned has reviewed de novo plaintiff’s complaint and similarly dismisses plaintiff’s claims
for damages against the named prison officials at CVSP and VSP without prejudice to filing in the
proper venue and dismisses as moot any claims for injunctive relief against the named prison

1

Dr. Branch now moves for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56

2

on the ground that there are no material facts in dispute and that she is entitled to judgment as a

3

matter of law. Plaintiff has filed an opposition and Dr. Branch has filed a reply.

BACKGROUND

4
5

Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are undisputed:
While plaintiff was incarcerated at CTF, he complained of “stomach” and “right side

6

inflammation and pain.” Compl. (ECF No. 1) ¶ 5. Dr. Branch and other health care providers at

7

CTF ordered and showed plaintiff various labs and tests that came back normal, and had plaintiff

8

“complete[]” treatment for Helicobacter Pylori (bacterial infection of the stomach and duodenum

9

causing frequent abdominal pain).” Branch Decl. (ECF No. 23-2) ¶ 4. But plaintiff continued to

10
11

complain of “hepatis diabetic-like symptoms.” Compl. ¶ 12.
By July 1, 2014, Dr. Branch began to wonder if plaintiff had a “somatoform disorder,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

which refers to a syndrome consisting of physical findings that cause substantial distress and
12
13
14

psychosocial impairment and are not explained by a known general medical disease,” and decided
to refer him to mental health. Branch Decl. ¶ 5.
Despite her suspicion of a somatoform disorder, on July 15, 2014 Dr. Branch sent plaintiff

15

to Natividad Medical Center for an upper GI endoscopy (EGD). “Nothing [remarkable] was

16

found and the examining doctor assessed plaintiff’s condition as Gastritis (inflammation of the

17

stomach lining).” Id. ¶ 6; accord EGD Report at 1-2 (ECF No. 1-3 at 3-4).
On August 8, 2014, Dr. Branch sent plaintiff for a CT scan of his abdomen. The CT scan

18

report noted that “[t]he liver, gallbladder, bile ducts, spleen, pancreas, left kidney, and adrenal

19

glands are unremarkable. There is a small cyst in the lower pole [of] the right kidney.” CT Scan

20

Report at 1 (ECF No. 1-3 at 11). The report also noted that “[t]he visualized gastrointestinal tract

21

is unremarkable without evidence of obstruction or inflammatory pathology. The appendix is

22

visualized as a normal structure.” Id. The radiologist concluded, “No intra-abdominal pathology

23
24
25
26

identified.” Id. Plaintiff “claimed the test had not been done correctly.” Branch Decl. ¶ 7.
By March 16, 2015, plaintiff still believed that he was diabetic and had hepatitis, “despite
numerous tests and assurances that he did not have these problems.” Id. ¶ 9; accord Mar. 30, 2016
Second Level HC Appeal Response at 1-2 (ECF No. 1-2 at 75-76) (summarizing lab reports
showing plaintiff was not diabetic and did not have hepatitis).

27
28

officials at CTF, CVSP and VSP.
2

On September 4, 2015, Dr. Branch requested a renal ultrasound in response to plaintiff’s

1

persistent complaints of right flank pain. “The results were returned on September 22, 2015 as
2

unremarkable, normal kidneys and bladder.” Branch Decl. ¶ 11.

3

On September 16, 2015, an interdisciplinary meeting was convened to discuss how best to

4

treat plaintiff. The meeting was attended by Dr. Branch, nurses Grant and Deluna, and

5

psychologists Keller and Wynn. “It was concluded that plaintiff should continue to receive

6

medical and mental health care as needed.” Id. ¶ 12.
By November 21, 2015, plaintiff’s primary diagnosis was listed as somatoform disorder.

7

“Somatization disorder is believed to be due to psychological causes.” Id. ¶ 13.
8
9

On January 4, 2016, plaintiff was transferred to CVSP. “A mental health referral for his
history of Somatization disorder was ordered.” Id. ¶ 14.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review
Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show that there

is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the [moving party] is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those which may affect the outcome of
the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material
fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the

16
17

nonmoving party. Id.
The moving party for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those

18

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

19

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

20

party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, it must affirmatively demonstrate that no

21

reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party. But on an issue for which the
opposing party will have the burden of proof at trial, as is the case here, the moving party need

22

only point out “that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id.

23

Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the

24

pleadings to demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact by “citing to specific

25

parts of materials in the record” or “showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence

26

or presence of a genuine dispute.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A triable dispute of material fact exists

27

only if there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party to allow a jury to return a verdict

28
3

1

for that party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. If the nonmoving party fails to make this showing, “the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.

2

There is no genuine issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the

3

nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. If the

4

evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.

5

Id. at 249-50.

6

B.

7

Analysis
Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment if they are “deliberate[ly] indifferen[t] to [a

8

prisoner’s] serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A medical need is

9

serious if failure to treat it will result in “significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton
infliction of pain.” Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1081 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (citation and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

internal quotation marks omitted). A prison official is “deliberately indifferent” to that need if she

12

“knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

13

837 (1994).

14

A difference of opinion between a prisoner and a physician – or between medical

15

professionals – concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to deliberate

16

indifference. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 987 (9th Cir. 2012); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d

17

240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). Even proof that a physician was negligent or committed medical

18

malpractice is insufficient to make out a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Farmer, 511 U.S. at

19

835-36 & n.4; Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). To show deliberate

20

indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the prisoner-plaintiff must show that the

21

course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and

22

that they chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health. Snow,

23

681 F.3d at 988; Toguchi, 391 F. 3d at 1058; Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.

24

1996).

25

Plaintiff claims that Dr. Branch was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs

26

because she discounted his complaints of right sided inflammation and pain as “unfounded or

27

made up in his head.” Compl. ¶ 10. But the undisputed evidence in the record shows that Dr.

28

Branch did not disregard plaintiff’s complaints. Despite her documented belief that plaintiff may
4

1

hav had a som
ve
matoform dis
sorder, Dr. Branch referr plaintiff for an EGD, abdominal CT scan and
B
red
,
d

2

ren ultrasoun and order various laboratory te
nal
nd,
red
ests. None of these studi or tests sh
ies
howed any

3

inte
ernal obstruc
ction, inflam
mmation or pathology, or indicated th plaintiff had diabetes or
p
r
hat
s

4

hep
patitis. Plain
ntiff’s conten
ntion that Dr Branch sh ould have qu
r.
uestioned th results of t
he
the

5

stu
udies/tests an done more is not enou for a rea
nd
e
ugh
asonable jury to find that she was del
y
t
liberately

6

ind
different to plaintiff’s ser
p
rious medica needs. Pla
al
aintiff sets fo no evidence showin that the
forth
ng

7

stu
udies/tests we unreliabl and that Dr. Branch kn this and ignored it, or that Dr. B
ere
le
D
new
d
Branch

8

ign
nored any oth obvious risk to plain
her
ntiff’s health. See Toguc 391 F.3d at 1057 & n.4 (prison
.
chi,
d

9

off
ficial does no violate 8th Amendmen if she sho
ot
h
nt
ould have bee aware of risk, but wa not).
en
as
Dr. Bra
anch is entitled to summa judgmen on plaintif § 1983 c
ary
nt
ff’s
claim for dam
mages for

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

del
liberate indif
fference to serious medic needs. D
cal
Despite his a
assertions to the contrary plaintiff
y,

12

has not set fort any probat evidenc for a reaso
s
th
tive
ce
onable jury t find that th course of treatment
to
he
f

13

Dr. Branch cho was med
ose
dically unacc
ceptable und the circum
der
mstances and that she ch
d
hose this

14

cou in consc
urse
cious disrega of an exc
ard
cessive risk t plaintiff’s health. See Snow, 681 F.3d at
to
s
e

15

988 Toguchi, 391 F. 3d at 1058; Jacks 90 F.3d at 332. Tha plaintiff’s symptoms a
8;
son,
at
allegedly

16

con
ntinued at CV
VSP, VSP and CSP – Co
a
orcoran does not compe a different conclusion.2
s
el

17

/

CONCLU
USION

18
19

For the foregoing re
easons, Dr. Branch’s mo
B
otion for sum
mmary judgm (ECF N 23) is
ment
No.
RANTED.
GR
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.

20
21

Da
ated: July 30, 2018
,
___
__________
___________
__________
________
CH
HARLES R. BREYER
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Pl
laintiff’s mot
tion (ECF No. 32) for a court order r
N
requiring CS – Corcora officials t refer him
SP
an
to
to a private me
edical facility for various tests is DEN
y
s
NIED witho prejudice to bringing in a
out
e
g
sep
parate action in the Easte District of California where CSP – Corcoran lies.
n
ern
o
a,
P
n
5

1
2

UNITED STATES D
D
DISTRICT C
COURT

3

NORTHER DISTRIC OF CALI
RN
CT
IFORNIA

4
5

DARWIN C. EDWARDS
D
S,

Case No. 3
3:16-cv-0666
68-CRB

Plaintiff,
6
v.

CERTIFIC
CATE OF S
SERVICE

7
8

ROSELLE BR
RANCH,
.
Defendant.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

I, the un
ndersigned, hereby certify that I am an employe in the Offi of the Clerk, U.S.
ee
ice
Dis
strict Court, Northern Di
istrict of Cal
lifornia.

12
13
14
15
16

That on July 30, 20 I SERVE a true an correct co
n
018,
ED
nd
opy(ies) of th attached, by placing
he
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelo addressed to the pers
i
ope
d
son(s) herein
nafter listed, by
dep
positing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by pla
d
n
M
acing said co
opy(ies) into an inter-off delivery
o
ffice
y
rec
ceptacle loca in the Cl
ated
lerk's office.
.

17
18
19

Da
arwin C. Edw
wards ID: AH
H9825
CS
SATF G2-32-4 up
P.O Box 5244
O.
4
Corcoran, CA 93212

20
21
22
23

ated: July 30, 2018
,
Da
Su
usan Y. Soon
ng
Cl
lerk, United States Distr Court
d
rict

24
25
26

By
y:_________
___________
_______
La
ashanda Sco Deputy C
ott,
Clerk to the
H
Honorable CH
HARLES R. BREYER

27
28
6