Opinion
No. 1:04-CV-6453-FRZ
03-20-2012
Dana McMaster, Plaintiff, v. Doctor Thomas, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 19) alleges that he fractured his ankle while incarcerated, that prison medical officials knew he fractured his ankle, but failed to properly treat his fractured ankle causing him to suffer unnecessary medical problems and pain. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate where "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A genuine issue exists if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party," and material facts are those "that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is "material" if, under the applicable substantive law, it is "essential to the proper disposition of the claim." Id. An issue of fact is "genuine" if "there is sufficient evidence on each side so that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue either way." Id. Thus, the "mere scintilla of evidence" in support of the nonmoving party's claim is insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Id. at 252. However, in evaluating a motion for summary judgment, "the evidence of the nonmoving party is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Id. at 255. SUBSTANTIVE LEGAL STANDARDS GOVERNING PLAINTIFF'S REMAINING CLAIMS AND DISCUSSION
Not every claim by a prisoner relating to inadequate medical treatment states a violation of the Eighth Amendment. To state a § 1983 medical claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). A plaintiff must show (1) a "serious medical need" by demonstrating that failure to treat the condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and (2) the defendant's response was deliberately indifferent. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quotations omitted).
"Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard." Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official must both know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health; "the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Deliberate indifference in the medical context may be shown by a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner's pain or possible medical need and harm caused by the indifference. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. Deliberate indifference may also be shown when a prison official intentionally denies, delays, or interferes with medical treatment or by the way prison doctors respond to the prisoner's medical needs. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05; Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096.
Deliberate indifference is a higher standard than negligence or lack of ordinary due care for the prisoner's safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835. "Neither negligence nor gross negligence will constitute deliberate indifference." Clement v. California Dep't of Corrections, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1105 (N.D. Cal. 2002); see also Broughton v. Cutter Labs., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (mere claims of "indifference," "negligence," or "medical malpractice" do not support a claim under § 1983); Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 393 (9th Cir. 1988) (granting summary judgment against a plaintiff who relied only on her own allegations and conclusory statements that defendants had been negligent and who failed to provide affidavits or depositions of experts). "A difference of opinion does not amount to deliberate indifference to [a plaintiff's] serious medical needs." Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). A mere delay in medical care, without more, is insufficient to state a claim against prison officials for deliberate indifference. See Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). The indifference must be substantial. The action must rise to a level of "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105.
Plaintiff's related claim for a violation of California Government Code §845.6 states: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for injury proximately caused by the failure of the employee to furnish or obtain medical care for a prisoner in his custody; but . . . a public employee, and the public entity where the employee is acting within the scope of his employment, is liable if the employee knows or has reason to know that the prisoner is in need of immediate medical care and he fails to take reasonable action to summon such medical care."
Pursuant to previous Orders, including the Court partially granting Defendants' motion to dismiss, the only remaining claims are that prison medical officials were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the 8th Amendment and his related California Government Code §845.6 claim. These claims remain against five Defendants (four prison medical doctors-Thomas, Salazar, Ortiz, Nicholes; and one prison medical technician assistant-Sedwick). In support of their motion for summary judgment, Defendants properly submitted admissible evidence which included directly relevant medical documentation pertaining to the treatment of Plaintiff's injury, and a declaration from a medical expert who reviewed the underlying medical documentation and offered an expert opinion that Plaintiff's treatment complied with the applicable medical standard of care under the circumstances of this case. However, a review of Plaintiff's filings and evidence in opposition to summary judgment shows that Plaintiff failed to properly and directly dispute Defendants' material facts with admissible evidence such that the material facts are undisputed such that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment. See Docs. 102, 101, 100 (Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts, Defendants' Evidentiary Objections to Plaintiff's Evidence in Opposition to Motion by Defendants for Summary Judgment, Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Summary Judgment). The undisputed material, admissible evidence properly before the Court at summary judgment shows that there is no issue of fact entitling Plaintiff to relief in this case under the Eighth Amendment or California Government Code §845.6. The record reflects that Plaintiff received extensive, timely and appropriate medical treatment pertaining to the injuries at issue in this case which shows that there was no deliberate medical indifference by Defendants, and that Defendants did not fail to take reasonable action to address Plaintiff's medical needs. In addition, Defendants' medical expert offered unrefuted expert testimony to a reasonable degree of medical or professional certainty that: (a) Defendants' treatment of Plaintiff's injuries was consistent with the medical standard of care and with industry practices regarding correctional medicine; (b) Plaintiff's injuries did not present a serious medical need to Defendants; and (c) Defendants nonetheless took reasonable actions in response to the information at their disposal and in accordance with their discretion regarding Plaintiff's medical condition. Based on the record before the Court and the governing legal standards discussed herein, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
(1) Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted.
(2) This case is dismissed with prejudice.
(3) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this case.
___________________________
Frank R. Zapata
Senior United States District Judge