Brown v. King County Jail et al

Filing 128

ORDER ADOPTING 124 Report and Recommendation. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 92 ) is GRANTED; Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice; Defendants' motions to strike (Dkt. Nos. 92 , 117 ) are GRANTE D as to Docket Numbers 62 , 66-71, 86 , 87 , and 116 and DENIED as to Docket Number 66 ; Plaintiff's motion to proceed to trial (Dkt. No. 90 ) is DENIED as moot; Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to respond to Defendants� 39; summary judgment motion (Dkt. No. 111 ) is DENIED as moot; Plaintiff's motion for discovery (Dkt. No. 119 ) is STRICKEN; and Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 121 ) is DENIED as moot. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Dranoel Brown, Prisoner ID: 314960)(TH)

Download PDF
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 DRANOEL ENAJ BROWN, 10 Plaintiff, 11 ORDER v. 12 CASE NO. C16-1332-JCC KING COUNTY, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. No. 125) to United 16 States Magistrate Judge James P. Donohue’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 124). 17 Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court 18 OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. No. 125) and ADOPTS Judge Donohue’s Report and 19 Recommendation (Dkt. No. 124) for the reasons explained herein. 20 I. 21 Plaintiff brings suit against eight defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and the BACKGROUND 22 Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. section 12132, for claims stemming from medical 23 care he received while incarcerated at the King County Regional Justice Center. (Dkt. No. 124 at 24 1.) Defendants moved for summary judgment, and Judge Donohue issued a Report and 25 Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motion. (Id. at 23.) 26 Judge Donohue’s R&R also provides recommendations on the following additional motions ORDER C16-1332-JCC PAGE - 1 1 pending before the Court: Defendants’ motions to strike (Dkt. Nos. 92, 117), and Plaintiff’s 2 motions to proceed to trial (Dkt. No. 90), for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 111), for discovery 3 (Dkt. No. 119), and for preliminary injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 121). Plaintiff filed objections 4 (Dkt. No. 125) and a “motion for altered judgment” (Dkt. No. 126), which appears to raise an 5 additional objection to evidence Judge Donohue relied on in making his recommendation. 6 II. PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS 7 The Court reviews the record before it on objections to an R&R de novo. 28 U.S.C. 8 § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s objections specifically address only his claims against Defendants RN 9 David Pasoquens and RN Nancy Ledgerwood. (Dkt. Nos. 125 at 1–3, 126 at 1.) Plaintiff 10 contends that Pasoquens examined him on November 2, 2015 and “mocked” him by offering 11 him a walker instead of the wheelchair Plaintiff requested. (Dkt. No. 125 at 2.) Plaintiff asserts 12 that Pasoquens lied in his declaration by claiming he was not present in the examination, and that 13 Pasoquens’ testimony conflicts with RN Ledgerwood’s statement. (Dkt. No. 126 at 1.) Plaintiff 14 argues that he could have established this falsehood if he had been provided counsel. (Dkt. No. 15 125 at 1, 3.) 1 16 Judge Donohue found no evidence that Pasoquens was present at the November 2, 2015 17 medical examination, and thus no evidence that he participated in the challenged conduct. (Dkt. 18 No. 124 at 16.) Plaintiff presents no evidence that contradicts Judge Donohue’s conclusion. (See 19 Dkt. Nos. 125, 126.) However, even if Plaintiff is correct that Pasoquens medically examined 20 him and offered him a walker, Plaintiff has still failed to demonstrate that these actions violated 21 his constitutional or statutory rights. As Judge Donohue noted, multiple medical professionals 22 determined that a wheelchair was not appropriate for Plaintiff’s injury. (Dkt. No. 124 at 12.) 23 24 25 26 1 The Court denied Plaintiff’s prior motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 8). It finds no basis to revisit that ruling. The evidence before the Court still indicates that Plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his case even with the assistance of counsel, and that he has been able to successfully articulate his claims through multiple amendments of his complaint and court filings. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). ORDER C16-1332-JCC PAGE - 2 1 Ledgerwood testified that she also offered Plaintiff the option of a walker as a medically 2 appropriate alternative to crutches. (Dkt. No. 126 at 4.) Accordingly, Plaintiff has made no 3 showing of objective deliberate indifference to his right to adequate medical care. See Gordon v. 4 County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018). Nor has Plaintiff pointed to any injury 5 resulting from the alleged conduct of Pasoquens and Ledgerwood. See id. Thus, the Court finds 6 summary judgment appropriate on Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants. 7 Plaintiff did not object to Judge Donohue’s other recommendations. (See Dkt. No. 125.) 8 Upon review of the record, the Court finds it appropriate to ADOPT the R&R as to those issues. 9 10 III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. Nos. 125, 11 126) and ADOPTS Judge Donohue’s Report and Recommendation. The Court accordingly 12 ORDERS as follows: 13 (1) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 92) is GRANTED; 14 (2) Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice; 15 (3) Defendants’ motions to strike (Dkt. Nos. 92, 117) are GRANTED as to Docket 16 Numbers 62, 66–71 , 86, 87, and 116 and DENIED as to Docket Number 66; 17 (4) Plaintiff’s motion to proceed to trial (Dkt. No. 90) is DENIED as moot; 18 (5) Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ summary 19 judgment motion (Dkt. No. 111) is DENIED as moot; 20 (6) Plaintiff’s motion for discovery (Dkt. No. 119) is STRICKEN; and 21 (7) Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 121) is DENIED as moot. 22 DATED this 9th day of July 2018. A 23 24 25 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 ORDER C16-1332-JCC PAGE - 3

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?