Beattie v. Reisenhoover et al
Filing
4
ORDER OF SERVICE. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/7/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2011)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
MICHAEL L. BEATTIE,
4
Plaintiff,
5
6
7
8
No. C 11-01187 CW (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE
v.
SUE REISENHOOVER, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
INTRODUCTION
9
Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at R.J.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Donovan State Prison in San Diego, has filed a pro se civil rights
12
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate
13
indifference to his serious medical needs.
14
to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted.
His motion for leave
15
Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the claim
16
are alleged to have occurred at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP),
17
which is located in this judicial district.
18
§ 1391(b).
19
20
21
See 28 U.S.C.
DISCUSSION
I.
Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any
22
case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity
23
or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
24
§ 1915A(a).
25
claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail
26
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary
27
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28
§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).
28 U.S.C.
In its review, the court must identify any cognizable
Id.
Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.
1
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
2
1988).
3
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
4
allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the
5
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and
6
(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting
7
under the color of state law.
8
(1988).
9
II.
Factual Background
The events at issue occurred when Plaintiff was housed in the
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48
11
Transitional Housing Unit (THU) at PBSP in 2009.
Plaintiff names
12
the following Defendants: PBSP Nurse Practitioner Sue
13
Reisenhoover, PBSP Nurse Practitioner Nancy Adams, PBSP
14
gastroenterologist Thomas Martinelli and PBSP Chief Medical
15
Officer (CMO) Michael Sayre.
Plaintiff suffers from ulcerative colitis (UC), a condition
16
17
with which he was first diagnosed in 1998.
The condition went
18
into remission for some years, but recurred in May 2009.
19
According to Plaintiff, from May through October 2009 he had
20
repeated visits and communications with Defendants concerning the
21
extreme pain and suffering he was experiencing from his UC, but
22
they provided inadequate care, including repeatedly prescribing
23
medications that didn't work and caused serious side effects, and
24
not providing sufficient pain management.
At the end of October 2009, Plaintiff was transferred to the
25
26
hospital for intravenous treatment with a new drug approved for
27
UC.
28
tract infection with the attendant symptoms of pain and
As a side effect of the treatment, he developed a urinary
2
1
discomfort.
Defendants were aware of the infection, but Plaintiff
2
was not treated for the infection or its symptoms for a week.
Between December 2009 and May 2010 Plaintiff's UC symptoms
3
4
improved, but in early May 2010 they returned full force.
5
Thereafter, in response to Plaintiff's requests for medical
6
attention, CMO Sayre told Plaintiff that there was nothing more he
7
could do for Plaintiff until Plaintiff's colon deteriorated to the
8
point it would have to be surgically removed.
Plaintiff requested a transfer to R.J. Donovan State Prison
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
for medical reasons and was transferred in November 2010.
Plaintiff claims that Defendants acted with deliberate
11
12
indifference to his serious medical needs between May 2009 and
13
November 2010 by (1) leaving him on medications they knew were not
14
working, (2) doing nothing to treat his pain and suffering, and
15
(3) doing nothing to treat the painful side effects of the
16
medications.
17
III.
18
Legal Claims
Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the
19
Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual
20
punishment.
21
McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled
22
on other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133,
23
1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769,
24
771 (9th Cir. 1986).
25
involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the
26
prisoner's medical need and the nature of the defendant's response
27
to that need.
28
medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner's condition
See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976);
A determination of "deliberate indifference"
See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059.
3
A "serious"
1
could result in further significant injury or the "unnecessary and
2
wanton infliction of pain."
3
104).
4
knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and
5
disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate
6
it.
7
Id. (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at
A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
Here, Plaintiff has alleged facts which, when liberally
8
construed, show that during the period of his incarceration at
9
PBSP (1) he suffered from UC, a serious medical need,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
(2) Defendants knew Plaintiff faced a substantial risk of serious
11
harm from his condition and drug side effects, and (3) Defendants
12
disregarded the serious risk of harm to Plaintiff by failing to
13
treat his condition and drug side effects promptly and to provide
14
adequate pain management.
15
Plaintiff's allegations state a cognizable claim against
16
Defendants for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious
17
medical needs.
Accordingly, the Court finds
CONCLUSION
18
19
For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:
20
1.
Plaintiff states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim
21
against Defendants for deliberate indifference to his serious
22
medical needs.
23
The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and
24
Request for Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver
25
of Service of Summons, a copy of the complaint and all attachments
26
thereto (docket no. 1) and a copy of this Order to PBSP Nurse
27
Practitioner Sue Reisenhoover, PBSP Nurse Practitioner Nancy
28
Adams, PBSP gastroenterologist Thomas Martinelli and PBSP Chief
4
1
2
Medical Officer Michael Sayre.
The Clerk of the Court shall also mail a copy of the
3
complaint and a copy of this Order to the State Attorney General's
4
Office in San Francisco.
5
copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
6
2.
Additionally, the Clerk shall mail a
Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure requires them to cooperate in saving
8
unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint.
9
Pursuant to Rule 4, if Defendants, after being notified of this
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
7
action and asked by the Court, on behalf of Plaintiff, to waive
11
service of the summons, fail to do so, they will be required to
12
bear the cost of such service unless good cause be shown for their
13
failure to sign and return the waiver form.
14
this action will proceed as if Defendants had been served on the
15
date that the waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule
16
12(a)(1)(B), Defendants will not be required to serve and file an
17
answer before sixty (60) days from the date on which the request
18
for waiver was sent.
19
would be required if formal service of summons is necessary.)
20
Defendants are asked to read the statement set forth at the foot
21
of the waiver form that more completely describes the duties of
22
the parties with regard to waiver of service of the summons.
23
service is waived after the date provided in the Notice but before
24
Defendants have been personally served, the Answer shall be due
25
sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for waiver was
26
sent or twenty (20) days from the date the waiver form is filed,
27
whichever is later.
28
3.
If service is waived,
(This allows a longer time to respond than
If
Defendants shall answer the complaint in accordance with
5
1
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2
schedule shall govern dispositive motions in this action:
3
a.
The following briefing
No later than ninety (90) days from the date their
4
answer is due, Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment
5
or other dispositive motion.
6
adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects
7
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
8
opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment,
9
they shall so inform the Court prior to the date the summary
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
judgment motion is due.
11
The motion shall be supported by
If Defendants are of the
promptly served on Plaintiff.
12
b.
All papers filed with the Court shall be
Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion
13
shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendants no later
14
than sixty (60) days after the date on which Defendants' motion is
15
filed.
16
should be given to pro se plaintiffs facing a summary judgment
17
motion:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice
The defendant has made a motion for summary
judgment by which they seek to have your case dismissed.
A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end
your case.
Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to
oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally,
summary judgment must be granted when there is no
genuine issue of material fact -- that is, if there is
no real dispute about any fact that would affect the
result of your case, the party who asked for summary
judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,
which will end your case. When a party you are suing
makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly
supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony),
you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says.
Instead, you must set out specific facts in
declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories,
or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e),
that contradict the facts shown in the defendant's
declarations and documents and show that there is a
6
1
2
3
genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not
submit your own evidence in opposition, summary
judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you.
If summary judgment is granted [in favor of the
defendants], your case will be dismissed and there will
be no trial.
4
See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en
5
banc).
6
Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of
7
Civil Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)
8
(party opposing summary judgment must come forward with evidence
9
showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
of his claim).
Plaintiff is cautioned that because he bears the
11
burden of proving his allegations in this case, he must be
12
prepared to produce evidence in support of those allegations when
13
he files his opposition to Defendants' dispositive motion.
Such
14
15
16
17
18
evidence may include sworn declarations from himself and other
witnesses to the incident, and copies of documents authenticated
by sworn declaration.
judgment simply by repeating the allegations of his complaint.
c.
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than
thirty (30) days after the date Plaintiff's opposition is filed.
d.
21
22
Plaintiff will not be able to avoid summary
The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date
the reply brief is due.
No hearing will be held on the motion
unless the Court so orders at a later date.
4.
Discovery may be taken in this action in accordance with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Leave of the Court pursuant
to Rule 30(a)(2) is hereby granted to Defendants to depose
Plaintiff and any other necessary witnesses confined in prison.
5.
All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be
served on Defendants, or Defendants' counsel once counsel has been
7
1
designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendants
2
or Defendants' counsel.
3
6.
It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case.
4
Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address
5
and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion.
6
7.
Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable
7
extensions will be granted.
8
must be filed no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the
9
deadline sought to be extended.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
Any motion for an extension of time
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 10/7/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2
3
MICHAEL LOUIS BEATTIE,
4
Case Number: CV11-01187 CW
Plaintiff,
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
v.
6
SUE REISENHOOVER et al,
7
Defendant.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
/
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on October 7, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said
envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.
13
14
17
Michael Louis Beattie H-93682
F3-14-217
R.J. Donovan
P.O. Box 799003
San Diego, CA 92174
18
Dated: October 7, 2011
15
16
19
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
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?