Jones v. Klamath County Jail

Filing 47

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Anna J. Brown. The Court GRANTS County Defendants' Motion 32 for Summary Judgment and DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff's claims against County Defendants. Signed on 1/13/2017 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (rrr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

STEPHEN ERIC JONES,
Plaintiff,

1:15-CV-01533-BR
OPINION AND ORDER

v.
KLAMATH COUNTY JAIL; LT.
COMMANDER DAVIDSON;
SGT. COLLINS, VALERIE NEESE;
CARLA THOMAS; and
DR. KNUDSEN,
Defendants.

STEPHEN ERIC JONES
OSH Bird 2
2600 Center Street N.E.
Salem, OR 97301
Plaintiff, Pro Se
GERALD L. WARREN
Law Office of Gerald L. Warren and Associates
901 Capitol Street N.E.
Salem, OR 97301
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendants Lt. Commander Davidson,
Sgt. Collins, Valerie Neese, and Carla Thomas 1

1

Defendant Klamath County Jail was dismissed from this
matter with prejudice on August 24, 2015.
Defendant Knudsen was
dismissed from this matter without prejudice on December 30,
2016.
1 - OPINION AND ORDER

BROWN, Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on County Defendants'
Motion (#32) for Summary Judgment.

For the reasons that follow,

the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion and DISMISSES with prejudice
Plaintiff's claims against County Defendants.

BACKGROUND

On August 13, 2015, Plaintiff Stephen Eric Jones filed a Pro
Se Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§

1983 in which he alleged

claims against Klamath County Jail and Lt. Commander Davidson for
denial of adequate medical care during Plaintiff's pretrial
detention at Klamath County Jail.
On August 24, 2015, the Court entered an Order in which it
dismissed Plaintiff's claims against Klamath County Jail and
Lt. Commander Davidson with leave to file an Amended Complaint
stating claims against Lt. Commander Davidson.
On October 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
against Lt. Commander Davidson, Sgt. Collins, Val,
and Dr. Knudsen alleging claims under

§

2

Carla Thomas,

1983 for denial of

adequate medical care during Plaintiff's pretrial detention at
Klamath County Jail and denial of access to the law library.
On August 3, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary

2

In their Motion for Summary Judgment Defendants identify
this Defendant as Valerie Neese.
2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Judgment.
On August 4, 2016, the Court issued a Summary Judgment
Advice Notice to Plaintiff advising him that if he did not submit
admissible evidence in opposition to Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment, summary judgment could be entered against him.
The Court took Defendants' Motion under advisement on
November 14, 2016.

STANDARDS

Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law."
States,

636 F.3d 1207, 1216

Civ. P. 56(a).

(9~

Washington Mut.
Cir. 2011).

Ins. v. United

See also Fed. R.

The moving party must show the absence of a

dispute as to a material fact.
395 F.3d 1142, 1146

(9~

Rivera v. Philip Morris, Inc.,

Cir. 2005).

In response to a properly

supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must
go beyond the pleadings and show there is a genuine dispute as to
a material fact for trial.

Id.

"This burden is not a light one

The non-moving party must do more than show there is
some 'metaphysical doubt' as to the material facts at issue."
re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387

In

(9th Cir. 2010)

(citation omitted).
A dispute as to a material fact is genuine "if the evidence
3 - OPINION AND ORDER

is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party."

Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d

1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc.,

477 U.S. 242, 248

(1986)).

The court must draw all

reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.
v. Verity, Inc.,

606 F.3d 584, 587

(9th Cir. 2010).

Sluimer

"Summary

judgment cannot be granted where contrary inferences may be drawn
from the evidence as to material issues."
381 F.3d 948,

957

Easter v. Am. W. Fin.,

(9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).

A "mere

disagreement or bald assertion" that a genuine dispute as to a
material fact exists "will not preclude the grant of summary
judgment."

Deering v. Lassen Cmty. Coll. Dist., No. 2:07-CV-

1521-JAM-DAD, 2011 WL 202797, at *2 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 20, 2011)
(citing Harper v. Wallingford,
1989)).

877 F.2d 728, 731 (9th Cir.

When the nonmoving party's claims are factually

implausible, that party must "come forward with more persuasive
evidence than otherwise would be necessary."

LVRC Holdings LLC

v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127, 1137 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
The substantive law governing a claim or a defense
determines whether a fact is material.
Prod., Inc.,

454 F.3d 975, 987

Miller v. Glenn Miller

(9th Cir. 2006).

If the

resolution of a factual dispute would not affect the outcome of
the claim, the court may grant summary judgment.

4 - OPINION AND ORDER

Id.

DISCUSSION

As noted, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants in his
Amended Complaint for denial of adequate medical care during
Plaintiff's pretrial detention at Klamath County Jail and for
denial of access to the law library.

Defendants move for summary

judgment on both claims.
I.

Plaintiff's claim for denial of adequate medical care.

Plaintiff alleges he was denied adequate medical care when
he was a pretrial detainee at Klamath County Jail.

Specifically,

Plaintiff asserts Defendants were deliberately indifferent to
Plaintiff's serious medical needs when they did not permit him to
use leg braces during his time at Klamath County Jail.
A.

Background

On October 2, 2014, Plaintiff was booked into the
Klamath County Jail.

At the time of his booking Plaintiff was

wearing "ACL type braces" on his legs that "contained items which
could present security issues for the jail."
Neese at

~

2.

Deel. of Valerie

Plaintiff advised Defendants that he had been

treated at the Klamath County Orthopedic Clinic and that he
required the braces.

Defendant Neese contacted Klamath County

Orthopedic Clinic and requested Plaintiff's medical information
in order to evaluate whether to permit Plaintiff to retain the
braces.

Plaintiff, however, was discharged from Klamath County

Jail on October 3, 2014, before Neese received a response from

5 - OPINION AND ORDER

the Orthopedic Clinic about Plaintiff's braces.
On October 7, 2014, Plaintiff was again booked into the
Klamath County Jail, but he was not wearing leg braces.
On November 6, 2014, Plaintiff sent a Medical Request Form
asking for a set of leg braces and advising Defendants to contact
the Klamath County Orthopedic Clinic about his need for braces.
On Friday, November 7, 2014, Neese sent a Request of
Information to Klamath County Orthopedic Clinic asking about
Plaintiff's need for braces.
On Monday, November 10, 2014, Defendant Carla Thomas, a
medical technician at Klamath County Jail, sent a Request of
Information to Klamath County Orthopedic Clinic asking whether
Plaintiff had a doctor's order to wear leg braces.
On November 11, 2014, Klamath County Orthopedic Clinic
advised Thomas that Plaintiff's "leg braces were optional [and]
not medically required."

Deel. of Carla Thomas at

~

4.

Neese

responded to Plaintiff regarding his Medical Request Form and
advised Plaintiff that his doctor told Defendants that
Plaintiff's leg braces were not medically necessary.
Defendant Lt. Commander Davidson did not permit Plaintiff to
use leg braces because they presented safety and security
concerns and they were not medically necessary.
At some point Plaintiff sent a letter to Dr. Knudsen
regarding his leg braces.

6 - OPINION AND ORDER

On January 6, 2015, Dr. Knudsen

contacted Thomas about Plaintiff's request for leg braces.
Dr. Knudsen advised Thomas that "he had thoroughly reviewed
[Plaintiff's] medical records and that nothing suggested that
metal leg braces were medically required."
'!I 5.

Thomas Deel. at

Dr. Knudsen advised Thomas that Plaintiff could wear

neoprene knee wraps, but they were not required and he had not
ordered them for Plaintiff.
On March 5, 2015, Plaintiff was transferred from Klamath
County Jail to the Oregon State Hospital.

When Plaintiff

returned to Klamath County Jail on May 21, 2015, he was wearing
neoprene knee wraps given to him at the hospital.

Plaintiff was

permitted to continue to wear the neoprene knee wraps at the
jail.
B.

Standards

Because Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at all
relevant times, the Court analyzes his claims under the
Fourteenth Amendment rather than under the Eighth Amendment.

See

Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1241 (9th

Cir. 2010) ("We have long analyzed claims that correction facility
officials violated pretrial detainees' constitutional rights by
failing to address their medical needs

. under [the]

'deliberate indifference' standard" of the Fourteenth
Amendment.).

See Frost v. Agnos, 152 F. 3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir.

1998) ("Pretrial detainees' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment

7 - OPINION AND ORDER

are comparable to prisoners' rights under the Eighth Amendment,
[and, therefore, the Court] applies the same standards.'').

The

Ninth Circuit, however, has also stated "because the contours of
the Eighth Amendment are more defined, Eighth Amendment
jurisprudence may provide helpful guidance as to the standards to
be applied [to Fourteenth Amendment analysis]."
Hunter, 500 F. 3d 978, 998

Hydrick v.

(9th Cir. 2007).

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs is a
cognizable claim for violation of the proscription against cruel
and unusual punishment.
(1976).

Estelle v. Gamble,

See also Actkinson v. Vargo,

429 U.S. 97, 104

284 F. App'x 469, 472

(9th

Cir. 2008).
To sustain [a] deliberate indifference claim, [a
plaintiff must] meet the following test:
"First,
the plaintiff must show a serious medical need by
demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner's
condition could result in further significant
injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of
pain.
Second, the plaintiff must show the
defendant's response to the need was deliberately
indifferent."
Peralta v. Dillard, No. 09-55907, 2013 WL 57893, at *3 (9th Cir.

Jan. 7, 2013) (quoting Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th
Cir. 2006)).

To satisfy the second prong (i.e., that defendant's

response to the need was deliberately indifferent), a plaintiff
must show "'(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a
prisoner's pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by
the indifference.'"
8 - OPINION AND ORDER

Id.

(quoting Jett,

439 F. 3d at 1096).

Deliberate indifference may be established by showing that prison
officials deny, delay, or intentionally interfere with medical
treatment or it may be demonstrated by the way prison officials
provide medical care.

Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096.

"Mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical
condition, without more, does not violate a prisoner's Eighth
Amendment rights."

Toguchi v. Chung, 391F.3d1051, 1057 (9th

Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).
F.3d 1113, 1122

(9~

See also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680

Cir. 2012) ("Medical malpractice does not

become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a
prisoner.") .

In addition, "a plaintiff's showing of nothing more

than a difference of medical opinion as to the need to pursue one
course of treatment over another [is] insufficient, as a matter
of law, to establish deliberate indifference."
at 1122

Wilhelm,

680 F.3d

(quotation omitted) .

C.

Analysis

Plaintiff fails to establish on this record that
Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious
medical needs; i.e., Plaintiff does not point to any evidence in
the record that establishes any medical professional prescribed
leg braces for Plaintiff or that leg braces were medically
necessary.

At best, Plaintiff has established he disagrees with

"the need to pursue one course of treatment over another," which
is "insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish deliberate

9 - OPINION AND ORDER

indifference."

Wilhelm,

680 F. 3d at 1122.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
Plaintiff, the Court finds no reasonable juror could conclude on
this record that Defendants' conduct constituted deliberate
indifference to a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff's health.
Plaintiff, therefore, has not established Defendants violated
Plaintiff's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's claim for denial of adequate
medical care.
II.

Plaintiff's claim for denial of access to the law library.

Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his right of access to
courts when they denied him access to the law library in a manner
that is unspecified in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
"Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to courts
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment" that may be met by access
to a law library.
1994).

Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.

Hebbe v. Pilar, 627 F. 3d 338, 342

(9th Cir. 2010) (same).

A plaintiff alleging a claim of denial of access to justice must
have some actual injury.
(1996).

Lewis v. Casey,

See also Evans v. El Dorado Hill,

518 U.S. 343, 352
457 F. App'x 618,

(9th Cir. 2011) (same).
In his Amended Complaint Plaintiff does not set out any
facts to support his claim for denial of access to the law

10 - OPINION AND ORDER

619

library.

The record reflects Plaintiff sent one kite requesting

access to the Klamath County Jail's law library on October 12,
2015.

On October 13, 2015, Lt. Commander Davidson granted

Plaintiff's request and permitted him to "go to the law library
during his out time."

Deel. of Jeanette Davison, Ex.

4

at 1.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
Plaintiff, the Court finds no reasonable juror could conclude on
this record that Defendants denied him access to the law library.
Plaintiff, therefore, has not established Defendants violated
Plaintiff's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Claim for denial of access to
the law library.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS County Defendants'
Motion (#32) for Summary Judgment and DISMISSES with prejudice
Plaintiff's claims against County Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 13th day of January, 2017.

United States District Judge
11 - OPINION AND ORDER