Heilman v. Cook et al

Filing 206

ORDER Denying Motions for Reconsideration re 192 201 . Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 8/31/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mpl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN,
CDCR #H-76785,

15

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 14-CV-1412 JLS (AGS)

v.
(ECF Nos. 192, 201)

J. COOK, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Thomas John Heilman’s “Objections to the

19

Court’s Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Defendants’ Motion for Summary

20

Judgment re: Eighth Amendment Claim as to Defendant R. Davis,” which the Court

21

construes as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s prior order on the parties’ cross-

22

motions for summary judgment. (“Mot. for Reconsideration,” ECF No. 192.) Also before

23

the Court are Dr. Davis’s Response in Opposition to, (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 203), and

24

Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of, (“Reply,” ECF No. 205), the Motion for Reconsideration.1

25

Plaintiff also filed what is ostensibly another motion for reconsideration. (“Second Mot.

26
27
28

1

Given that Plaintiff has filed a reply in support of his Motion for Reconsideration, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s alternative request to resubmit his motion to allow Defendants another opportunity to address
certain of his claims. (Reply 4–5.)
1
14-CV-1412 JLS (AGS)

1

for Reconsideration,” ECF No. 201.) After considering the parties’ arguments and the law,

2

the Court DENIES both of Plaintiff’s motions.

3

BACKGROUND

4

The Court’s previous Order granting in part and denying in part the parties’ cross-

5

motions for summary judgment (“MSJs”) contains a thorough and accurate recitation of

6

the basic facts of this case, which the Court incorporates by reference. (See Order on

7

Motions for Summary Judgment (“MSJ Order”), ECF No. 184.) Relevant to the present

8

motion for reconsideration, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment

9

as to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Robert Davis in finding that Dr.

10

Davis did not act with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs in the

11

aftermath of Plaintiff’s alleged beating in his cell. (MSJ Order 10–13.) The Court

12

additionally found that Dr. Davis did not violate Plaintiff’s due process rights under the

13

Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. at 13–17.) Plaintiff challenges several aspects of the Court’s

14

MSJ Order with regard to Dr. Davis, which the Court addresses below.

15

LEGAL STANDARD

16

In the Southern District of California, a party may apply for reconsideration

17

“[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or other relief has been

18

made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part.” Civ. L.R. 7.1(i)(1). The

19

moving party must provide an affidavit setting forth, inter alia, new or different facts and

20

circumstances which previously did not exist. Id.

21

Generally, reconsideration of a prior order is “appropriate if the district court (1) is

22

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision

23

was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist.

24

No. 1J, Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

25

Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality

26

and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d

27

877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Ultimately, whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration

28

is in the “sound discretion” of the district court. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041,
2
14-CV-1412 JLS (AGS)

1

1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 883). A party may not raise new

2

arguments or present new evidence if it could have reasonably raised them earlier. Kona

3

Enters., 229 F.3d at 890 (citing 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th

4

Cir. 1999)).

5

ANALYSIS

6

Plaintiff outlines six objections to the Court’s Order granting Defendants’ motion

7

for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Davis. (See

8

generally Mot. for Reconsideration.) The Court considers each in turn.

9

First, Plaintiff argues that the Court erred by relying on Dr. Davis’s evidence that he

10

took Plaintiff’s vital signs in the Crisis Treatment Center (“CTC”) at Richard J. Donovan

11

Correctional Facility (“RJD”). (Id. at 2.2) Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the “Court

12

overlooked Heilman’s assertion that if his vital signs were taken, then where are they

13

recorded? If not recorded, why not?” (Id. (emphasis in original); see also Reply 7 (citing

14

exhibit and noting that the “physical exam” box had no “vital signs” recorded).) The Court

15

did not overlook Plaintiff’s assertion. Rather, the Court found that his assertion, devoid of

16

evidentiary support, was insufficient to rebut Defendants’ evidence in the record at the

17

summary judgment phase. In particular, Dr. Davis declared that “Plaintiff allowed [him] to

18

take his vital signs, which were all normal. Specifically, there was no evidence of shortness

19

of breath, difficulty breathing, inadequate air flow into or out of the lungs, or rapid

20

respirations, which would support a determination of respiratory distress, though pain may

21

have made breathing uncomfortable for Plaintiff.” (MSJ Order 10 (citing Davis Decl. ¶ 6

22

(emphasis added)); see also ECF No. 163-1, ¶ 6 (noting same based on his physical exam

23

of Plaintiff).) That Dr. Davis did not record these respiratory findings on the “physical

24

exam” section, which includes boxes for items such as pulse and blood pressure, does not

25

support Plaintiff’s argument. Furthermore, as Dr. Davis argues, Plaintiff “fails to articulate

26
27
28

2

Pin citations to docketed material refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each
page.
3
14-CV-1412 JLS (AGS)

1

how the answers to the questions he posed would make any difference in the Court’s grant

2

of the summary judgment motion.” (Opp’n 3.) Accordingly, this argument fails.

3

Second, Plaintiff argues that the Court misconstrued the facts when noting that Dr.

4

Davis ordered an x-ray of Plaintiff’s chest area on May 9, 2013. (Mot. for Reconsideration

5

2.) According to Plaintiff, Dr. Davis only ordered a chest x-ray on May 10, 2013. (Id.) But

6

Plaintiff fails to explain how this alleged misstatement of fact would have any bearing on

7

the Court’s ruling on Dr. Davis’s motion for summary judgment. To be sure, Plaintiff states

8

that “Defendant Davis was aware Heilman had a serious medical need—(a ruptured and

9

collapsed lung!) yet, refused all medical care!” (Id. at 3 (emphasis in original); see also

10

Reply 9–10.) But Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence to support this point (i.e., that Dr.

11

Davis was aware of a serious medical need and was deliberately indifferent to that need by

12

failing to order an x-ray on that day). Rather, as discussed, after his initial assessment of

13

Plaintiff, Dr. Davis found “no evidence of shortness of breath, difficulty breathing,

14

inadequate air flow into or out of the lungs, or rapid respirations, which would support a

15

determination of respiratory distress, though pain may have made breathing uncomfortable

16

for Plaintiff.” (MSJ Order 10 (citing Davis Decl. ¶ 6).) And according to Plaintiff’s own

17

admissions, Dr. Davis did in fact order an x-ray to assess his medical condition shortly

18

thereafter. (See, e.g., Reply 9.) Accordingly, this argument fails.

19

Third, Plaintiff similarly argues that the Court misstated that Dr. Davis ordered

20

another chest x-ray on May 13, 2013. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that Dr. Davis only ordered one

21

x-ray, on May 10, 2013. (Id.) Again, Plaintiff fails to explain how this alleged misstatement

22

impacts the Court’s prior decision. Moreover, the Court did not even rely on this alleged

23

May 13, 2013 x-ray in finding that Dr. Davis did not violate Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

24

rights. (See MSJ Order 10–13.) Accordingly, this argument fails.

25

Fourth, Plaintiff again takes issue with the fact that Dr. Davis did not record the

26

specifics of Plaintiff’s vital signs. (Mot. for Reconsideration 3–4.) He again poses a

27

question of why Dr. Davis would take his vital signs when Nurse Donoghue allegedly did

28

not. (Id.) A question is not an argument, and Plaintiff again fails to explain how this should
4
14-CV-1412 JLS (AGS)

1

alter the Court’s prior decision. And just because Plaintiff believes it would be more likely

2

for Donoghue to take his vitals, it does not therefore follow that because he allegedly did

3

not, Dr. Davis could not have as well. Plaintiff also states that the Court’s reliance on this

4

apparent discrepancy is “inconsistent with established medical protocol and procedure.”

5

(Id. at 4.) But Plaintiff provides no citation to support his opinion, nor any argument for

6

why the Court should even consider this alleged new evidence at this stage. Finally,

7

Plaintiff again argues that Dr. Davis failed to document these “vital signs” in the “physical

8

exam box” of his cited exhibit, (Reply 12), which the Court has rejected above.

9

Accordingly, this argument fails.

10

Fifth, Plaintiff argues that “there has been presented a genuine dispute . . . as to

11

whether [he] was in respiratory distress and had difficulty breathing and related these facts

12

to Defendant Davis.” (Mot. for Reconsideration 4.) Specifically, Plaintiff argues that he

13

complained of difficulty breathing on his left side, which Dr. Davis noted in his medical

14

evaluation. (Reply 13.) There is no discrepancy here—Dr. Davis admits that Plaintiff “told

15

[him] that he had difficulty breathing on the left side that caused him to cough a lot.” (See,

16

e.g., ECF No. 163-1, ¶ 5.) So Dr. Davis examined him, and concluded that “there was no

17

evidence of shortness of breath, difficulty breathing, inadequate air flow into or out of the

18

lungs, or rapid respirations, which would support a determination of respiratory distress,

19

though pain may have made breathing uncomfortable for Plaintiff.” (Id. ¶ 6; see also ECF

20

No. 151-6, ¶ 6.) In other words, there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Dr. Davis

21

was aware of a serious medical issue, or that he was deliberately indifferent to that serious

22

medical need. Accordingly, this argument fails.

23

Sixth, Plaintiff argues that Dr. Cook’s operative Answer “implicated [Dr. Davis] as

24

the defendant who examined and medically cleared [Plaintiff] for ‘suicide monitoring’ in

25

the RJD MHCB unit . . . .” (Reply 14 (emphasis removed); see also Mot. for

26

Reconsideration 4–5.) But Plaintiff does not explain how this alleged implication should

27

impact the Court’s conclusion that Dr. Davis was neither aware of nor deliberately

28

indifferent to a serious medical need. Of course, Plaintiff argues that Dr. Davis cleared him
5
14-CV-1412 JLS (AGS)

1

even though he was “aware of [his] serious medical needs, yet refus[ed] to provide medical

2

care for those needs.” (Reply 15.) However, the Court has already rejected this conclusory

3

argument in its MSJ Order and in discussing Plaintiff’s fifth objection, supra. Accordingly,

4

this argument fails.

5

Finally, Plaintiff argues that the Court committed clear error by failing to refer his

6

motion for summary judgment to the magistrate judge for report and recommendation.

7

(Second Mot. for Reconsideration 2–3.) But Plaintiff fails to provide any authority for his

8

position. Accordingly, this argument fails. Plaintiff also reattaches his first Motion for

9

Reconsideration as an exhibit to support his contention that the Court failed to accept as

10

true all of the factual allegations contained in Plaintiff’s operative complaint. (Id. at 3–6.)

11

This argument fails for two reasons. First, at the summary judgment stage, a party cannot

12

merely rely on allegations made in a complaint. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A);

13

Oroczo v. Baldwin, 145 F.3d 1340 (9th Cir. 1998) (“To defeat a motion for summary

14

judgment, the non-moving party must go beyond his complaint and designate specific facts,

15

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”). Second, to the extent his argument is

16

premised on his original Motion for Reconsideration (which he referenced as an exhibit),

17

the Court rejects those contentions for the reasons set forth above. Accordingly, the Court

18

DENIES Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 201).

19
20
21
22
23

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES both of Plaintiff’s Motions for
Reconsideration (ECF Nos. 192, 201).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 31, 2017

24
25
26
27
28
6
14-CV-1412 JLS (AGS)