Hayes v. State of Washington, Department of Corrections et al
Filing
281
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Judge Benjamin H. Settle re 272 Objections to Report and Recommendation filed by Donald C Hayes. **5 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Donald Hayes, Prisoner ID: 766385)(TG)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
6
7
8
DONALD C. HAYES,
CASE NO. C16-5095 BHS-DWC
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
v.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
of the Honorable David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s
objections to the R&R. The R&R was filed on January 19, 2018, and Plaintiff filed his
objections on February 1, 2018. Dkts. 269, 272. The factual and procedural background
of this case are set forth in more detail in the R&R. Dkt. 269 at 2–3.
The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or
modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
ORDER - 1
1
The R&R properly concludes that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Suiter are
2
barred by the statute of limitations. Even if they were not, the record shows that Suiter
3
actually addressed Plaintiff’s medical needs with adequate care to the extent she was
4
made aware of them, and did not treat those needs with deliberate indifference. See
5
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, Plaintiff cannot
6
sustain Fourteenth Amendment informed consent claims on the vague and general
7
assertions that he consented to medical treatment from Suiter but not treatment that
8
would be inadequate. Plaintiff’s claims against Suiter are dismissed.
9
The R&R properly concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against
10
Defendant Smith in regards to allegations that Smith (1) failed to provide him with
11
treatment by a community specialist until a month after Plaintiff thought appropriate, (2)
12
failed to schedule Plaintiff for a follow-up meeting with a community surgeon, (3) failed
13
to provide consistent treatment, or (4) failed to adequately address Plaintiff’s declaration
14
of a medical emergency. Plaintiff makes numerous conclusory allegations in support of
15
these claims but fails to allege facts suggesting personal participation by Smith in any
16
denial of the type of medical attention for which Smith was responsible to provide
17
Plaintiff. The R&R also properly concludes that Smith is entitled to summary judgment
18
on Plaintiff’s remaining claims for inadequate treatment of pain. The record demonstrates
19
that Plaintiff regularly received medication and care for his complaints of pain and
20
Plaintiff has failed to present evidence of any incident whereupon Smith was informed of
21
his pain and failed to respond appropriately.
22
ORDER - 2
1
The R&R correctly determines that Defendant Reyes is entitled to summary
2
judgment on Plaintiff’s claims that Reyes wrongfully denied Plaintiff access to medical
3
care on July 30, 2015. The record shows that Plaintiff received a bandage change on July
4
29, 2015, and refused another bandage change on July 31, 2015. Plaintiff was seen only
5
three days later, on August 3, 2015, for a wound cleanse and additional bandage change.
6
Plaintiff’s medical records note that his wounds were closing well during this period.
7
Accordingly, the record refutes Plaintiff’s claims that Reyes denied him access to a
8
necessary bandage change in deliberate indifference to a serious medical need during that
9
timeframe.
10
The R&R correctly concludes that Defendant Duong is entitled to summary
11
judgment. The record shows that Duong ordered a wound culture for Plaintiff on March
12
31, 2016. After Duong received the results of the culture on April 5, 2016, Duong
13
ordered an antibiotic medication for Plaintiff that same day. Performing a physical
14
examination of Plaintiff on April 25, 2016, Duong determined that Plaintiff was not
15
suffering from a serious or life threatening condition, even though Plaintiff had not yet
16
been provided the antibiotics Duong had prescribed. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to
17
show any acts by Duong that prevented him from obtaining adequate medical care in
18
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
19
The R&R correctly concludes that the Washington State Department of
20
Corrections (DOC) is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims under the
21
Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff alleges that because of his hospitalization for
22
chronic wounds and the use of opiates during his treatment, as well as the DOC’s refusal
ORDER - 3
1
to enroll him in rehabilitation programs after being released from prison, Plaintiff was
2
precluded from participating in the Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (“DOSA”)
3
program. Plaintiff’s claim is that the DOC is responsible for this exclusion from the
4
DOSA program because it failed to provide him with the treatment to overcome his drug
5
addiction and maintain sobriety. But Plaintiff has failed to show that he was qualified to
6
participate in DOSA. While it is unfortunate that Plaintiff’s treatment for his chronic
7
wounds contributed to his relapse and that the DOC was unable to accommodate his
8
request for rehabilitation programs after his release, Plaintiff has failed to show that he
9
was entitled to different treatment from the DOC for his chronic wounds. Further, he
10
cannot blame his drug addiction that predated his incarceration or his post-release relapse
11
on the DOC.
12
Plaintiff also generally argues that Judge Christel failed to properly screen
13
Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint and should have addressed any shortcomings in the
14
complaint during such screening rather than in response to a motion for summary
15
judgment. See Dkt. 272 at 2–4, 6. This is not a proper objection to the R&R, as it does not
16
raise any concerns over the R&R’s conclusions that numerous claims raised by Plaintiff
17
are not adequately pled or are disproven by the record. Plaintiff also assigns error to the
18
R&R by claiming that it held Plaintiff to a heightened pleading standard. See Dkt. 272 at
19
2–4, 28–29. However, the R&R correctly determined that Plaintiff’s claims need only
20
contain sufficient factual detail as to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim
21
is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, et al., 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)
22
(internal citations omitted). To the extent that the R&R recommends the dismissal of
ORDER - 4
1
certain claims on the basis that they were inadequately pled, 1 the R&R appropriately
2
applied this standard and determined that the complaint failed to allege facts that would
3
support all the necessary elements of the relative claims.
4
Finally, while Plaintiff complains that he was denied discovery, Plaintiff has failed
5
to provide any evidence or substantive discussion to establish that the Defendants
6
neglected any particular discovery obligations. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to show
7
how the unspecified evidence he seeks would enable him to withstand Defendants’
8
summary judgment motions if the Court were to grant a continuance pursuant to Fed. R.
9
Civ. P. 56(d).
10
11
The Court having considered the R&R, Plaintiff’s objections, and the remaining
record, does hereby find and order as follows:
12
(1)
The R&R is ADOPTED; and
13
(2)
This action is DISMISSED.
14
The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case.
15
Dated this 28th day of February, 2018.
16
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
It should be noted that with the exception of certain claims against Smith, in the instances when
the R&R recommends the dismissal of claims for inadequate pleading it alternatively recommends the
entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendants based on the record.
ORDER - 5
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?