Rhymes v. Aranas et al

Filing 143

ORDER AND JUDGMENT - Defendants', Dwight Neven and Cynthia Sablica, Motion for Entry of Directed Verdict is GRANTED; it is FURTHER ORDERED that this Court retains jurisdiction over any matter pertaining to this judgment; and it is FURTH ER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED and the Clerk of the Court shall remove it from the docket of the Court. This is a final appealable order. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 3/2/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Case 3:15-cv-00592-RCJ-CLB Document 142-1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 2 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

MICHAEL RHYMES,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00592-RCJ-CLB

9

Plaintiff,

10

v.

11

ARANAS, et al.,

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

12

Defendants.

13

The Court has before it Defendants’, Cynthia Sablica and Dwight Neven, Motion for a Directed

14

Verdict pursuant to FRCP Rule 50. For reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the Defendants’

15

motion.

16

This is a pro se civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 26 at 1 passim). Plaintiff,

17

Michael Rhymes (Plaintiff) is an inmate in the lawful custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections

18

(NDOC). Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges Defendants, Cynthia Sablica (Sablica) and Dwight Neven (Neven)

19

violated his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United

20

States Constitution. Id. at 3 passim. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Sablica and Neven were deliberately

21

indifferent to his serious medical need of treatment for his high blood pressure and diabetes. Id. The events

22

at issue in this suit allegedly occurred at the High Desert State Prison (HDSP). Id. at 1.

23

Plaintiff alleges Sablica and Neven acted deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by denying

24

him “access to physician prescribed, essential, life-saving medications to treat” Plaintiff’s high blood

25

pressure and diabetes “for a prolonged period of time (nearly 5 months).” (ECF No. 26 at 3). Plaintiff

26

alleges this denial led to “Plaintiff suffer[ing] from advanced neuropothy, [sic] intense pain and swelling in

27

his hands and feet, eye damage resulting [in] substantial vision loss, and painful capillary damage in his

28

limbs.” Id. at 3.

1

Case 3:15-cv-00592-RCJ-CLB Document 142-1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 3 of 5
1

Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive his medication for an extended period of time. Under cross

2

examination, plaintiff alleges that the lack of medication for a period of time caused further damage to his

3

diabetic complications. However, he did not provide any medical or testimonial evidence to support his

4

claim of further damage. He admitted to receiving one medication each for his diabetes and high blood

5

pressure continuously during the entire time.

6

Plaintiff was not able to show that Defendant Neven, as warden of the prison, had any personal

7

participation in the medication issue. Although Defendant Sablica was a nurse, she was a nursing

8

supervisor, and, also, had no personal participation in Plaintiff’s prescription issue. Plaintiff was not able

9

to show that Defendants, Sablica and Neven were aware of the delay in Plaintiff’s receipt of his

10

medication during the duration of the delay. Defendant Sablica was not the nurse from whom Plaintiff

11

received his medication, nor did she have any involvement or direct contact with Plaintiff in this matter.

12

Defendant Neven did not deny Plaintiff any requested medication or treatment, as he was not personally

13

involved in the medical administration, treatment, or care of inmates. Further, Defendant Neven did not

14

receive or respond to Plaintiff’s medical complaints, as he was not involved in the day-to-day operations

15

of the medical department at HDSP. Neither of the Defendants were listed as signatory to any of the

16

grievances or medical requests (kites) filed by Plaintiff.

17

The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes a proscription against “cruel and unusual

18

punishments.” U.S. CONST. amend VIII. “[T]he primary concern of the drafters was to proscribe

19

torture(s) and other barbar(ous) methods of punishment.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976)

20

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Over time, this doctrine expanded to proscribe “more

21

than physically barbarous punishments” and was applied to proscribe “inhumane” methods of execution,

22

involving “torture or a lingering death.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). More

23

recently, the U.S. Supreme Court again expanded this doctrine to embody “broad and idealistic concepts

24

of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency,” while holding “repugnant to the Eighth

25

Amendment punishments which are incompatible with the evolving standards of decency that mark the

26

progress of a maturing society.” Id. at 102-03 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

27

///

28

///

2

Case 3:15-cv-00592-RCJ-CLB Document 142-1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 4 of 5
1

A plaintiff alleging an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical

2

need must demonstrate (1) a serious medical need and (2) the defendant’s deliberate indifference in

3

response. McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX

4

Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1197). The second element requires proof that the

5

defendants knew of an excessive risk to the inmate’s health and, notwithstanding that knowledge,

6

disregarded the risk. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).

7

Likewise, the Ninth Circuit has stressed that “there must be a conscious disregard of a serious risk

8

of harm for deliberate indifference to exist.” Toguchi v Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 at 1059 (9th Cir. 2004.

9

“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard. A showing of medical malpractice or negligence is

10

insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 1060.

11

Delay of, or interference with, medical treatment can constitute deliberate indifference. Jett vs.

12

Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006); Clement vs. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 905 (9th Cir. 2002);

13

Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988). However, where a prisoner is alleging a

14

delay of medical treatment gives rise to deliberate indifference, the prisoner must show that the delay led

15

to further injury. Hallett vs. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 745–46 (9th Cir. 2002); Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State

16

Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam).

17

Because deliberate indifference requires actual knowledge of an excessive risk, Farmer, supra, a

18

defendant can only be liable if the defendant personally participated in the alleged constitutional violation.

19

See Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (“In order for a person acting under color of state

20

law to be liable under section 1983 there must be a showing of personal participation in the alleged rights

21

deprivation…”); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Liability under section 1983 arises

22

only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant.”).

23

Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the elements of his Eighth Amendment claim. While this Court finds

24

that Plaintiff set forth a factual question regarding whether he had a serious medical need, and therefore

25

assumes for purposes of Defendant’s FRCP Rule 50 motion that there was a serious medical need, he

26

failed to put forth any genuine issue of material fact regarding whether these Defendants had any personal

27

///

28

///

3

Case 3:15-cv-00592-RCJ-CLB Document 142-1 Filed 02/11/20 Page 5 of 5
1

participation. Plaintiff therefore failed to provide any factual issue for the jury, and as a matter of law,

2

failed in his burden to show personal participation on the part of the Defendants. He has also failed to

3

prove continuing harm as a result of the missed medications.

4

Accordingly, it is hereby

5
6
7
8
9
10

ORDERED that Defendants’, Dwight Neven and Cynthia Sablica, Motion for Entry of Directed
Verdict is GRANTED; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that this Court retains jurisdiction over any matter pertaining to this
judgment; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED and the Clerk of the Court shall remove it
from the docket of the Court. This is a final appealable order. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a).

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED THIS: March 2, 2020.

13
/s/_______________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

SUBMITTED BY:
AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572
Senior Deputy Attorney General
State of Nevada
Public Safety Division
100 N. Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717
Tel: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

23
24
25
26
27
28

4