Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01111/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01111-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GREGORY GOODS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TIM V. VIRGA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-1111-MCE-EFB P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. The sole remaining defendant, Behroz Hamkar, moves for summary judgment. 

ECF No. 41. Hamkar also moves to strike some of plaintiff’s evidence submitted in opposition 

the motion. ECF No. 46. For the reasons that follow, the motion to strike is granted but 

summary judgment must be denied. 

I. Background 

Plaintiff’s verified complaint1

 alleges the following facts: On January 2, 2011, plaintiff’s 

left knee was in such a state—swollen to four times the size of his right knee—that plaintiff could 

not walk. ECF No. 1 at 3, 4. He told a nurse at the prison (California State Prison, Sacramento, 

 1

 Plaintiff’s verified complaint constitutes evidence (akin to an affidavit) for purposes of 

resolving summary judgment to the extent that it is: (1) based on plaintiff’s personal knowledge, 

(2) sets forth admissible facts, and (3) sets forth facts to which plaintiff is competent to testify. 

Lew v. Kona Hosp., 754 F.2d 1420, 1423 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Case 2:12-cv-01111-MCE-EFB Document 49 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

or “CSP-Sac”) medical clinic that he could not walk and asked for crutches. Id. at 3. Plaintiff 

was returned to his housing unit via wheelchair after being told he needed a doctor’s order. Id. 

He was also issued “a 115 Rules violation report for manipulation of staff . . . .” Id. 

The following day, January 3rd, plaintiff was summoned to see defendant, Dr. Behroz 

Hamkar. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff told Dr. Hamkar that he was injured and showed him his left knee. 

Id. at 4. Dr. Hamkar told plaintiff that he had called plaintiff in to let him know that he would be 

responding in writing to an inmate appeal plaintiff had filed against Dr. Hamkar. Id. Dr. Hamkar 

said he could not see plaintiff at that time regarding the knee injury. Id. Plaintiff alleges that this 

refusal was motivated by and in retaliation for plaintiff’s administrative complaint against Dr. 

Hamkar. Id.

On January 10, 2011, Dr. Hamkar saw plaintiff for his knee injury and provided him with: 

(1) crutches, (2) naproxen for swelling, and (3) an appointment for an x-ray. Id. Plaintiff alleges 

that these things should have been provided on January 3rd. Id. On January 12, 2011, plaintiff 

received an x-ray. Id. On January 24, 2011, Dr. Robert Bemrick found, on reading the x-ray, that 

plaintiff was “at risk for ligament damage,” but according to plaintiff Dr. Hamkar ignored this 

information. Id. Dr. Hamkar diagnosed plaintiff with knee strain and prescribed physical 

therapy. Id. Plaintiff questioned the diagnosis without Dr. Hamkar having taken an MRI 

suggested by Dr. Bemrick to assess the potential ligament damage, but Dr. Hamkar ignored the 

suggestion. Id.

On February 14, 2011, Dr. Dillion ordered an MRI for plaintiff, “as a result of [plaintiff’s] 

602 complaint.” Id. The MRI was performed on March 8, 2011, and revealed that plaintiff had 

“major multiligamentous injuries.” Id. at 4, 8. On March 14, 2011, plaintiff went to an 

orthopedic consultation with Dr. Dowbak at San Joaquin General Hospital. Id. at 4. Dr. Dowbak 

suggested that plaintiff either undergo surgery or use a double-hinged knee brace with physical 

therapy. Id. Although plaintiff opted for the brace and therapy he was not allowed to have the 

double-hinged brace, because it has metal in it. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff claims this treatment was 

unfair because other inmates had double-hinged braces with metal. Id. Ultimately, Dr. Dillion 

ordered plaintiff a neoprene brace with Velcro on April 18, 2011. Id. at 5. 

Case 2:12-cv-01111-MCE-EFB Document 49 Filed 02/12/15 Page 2 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

After plaintiff filed an inmate grievance about not receiving the proper brace, Dr. Hamkar 

called plaintiff to his office on June 9, 2011 and told plaintiff that Dr. Hamkar would order the 

brace. Id. Dr. Hamkar also formally responded to the 602 grievance on June 29, 2011 by saying 

he would order the proper brace. Id. When plaintiff had not received the brace after 60 more 

days, he asked the patient advocacy liaison, R.N. Liuggi, why. Id. She told him that Dr. Hamkar 

had changed his mind and would not order the brace. Id. A second inquiry by plaintiff yielded 

the same response on October 5, 2011; Dr. Hamkar stated that plaintiff’s knee injury did not 

“meet criteria of medical necessity.” Id. 

Plaintiff claims that Dr. Hamkar was not qualified to treat his knee injury and that the 

treatment he provided was deliberately indifferent in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the 

U.S. Constitution and that Dr. Hamkar refused him treatment in retaliation for his prison 

grievances in violation of the First Amendment. Id. 

II. Defendant’s Motions 

A. Motion for Summary Judgment 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary 

judgment avoids unnecessary trials in cases in which the parties do not dispute the facts relevant 

to the determination of the issues in the case, or in which there is insufficient evidence for a jury 

to determine those facts in favor of the nonmovant. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 600 

(1998); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-50 (1986); Nw. Motorcycle Ass'n v. 

U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 18 F.3d 1468, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1994). At bottom, a summary judgment 

motion asks whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a 

jury. 

The principal purpose of Rule 56 is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims 

or defenses. Celotex Cop. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). Thus, the rule functions to 

“‘pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for 

trial.’” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) 

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) advisory committee’s note on 1963 amendments). Procedurally, 

Case 2:12-cv-01111-MCE-EFB Document 49 Filed 02/12/15 Page 3 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4 

under summary judgment practice, the moving party bears the initial responsibility of presenting 

the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record, together with affidavits, if 

any, that it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 

U.S. at 323; Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). If the moving 

party meets its burden with a properly supported motion, the burden then shifts to the opposing 

party to present specific facts that show there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); 

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Auvil v. CBS “60 Minutes”, 67 F.3d 816, 819 (9th Cir. 1995). 

A clear focus on where the burden of proof lies as to the factual issue in question is crucial 

to summary judgment procedures. Depending on which party bears that burden, the party seeking 

summary judgment does not necessarily need to submit any evidence of its own. When the 

opposing party would have the burden of proof on a dispositive issue at trial, the moving party 

need not produce evidence which negates the opponent’s claim. See, e.g., Lujan v. National 

Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 885 (1990). Rather, the moving party need only point to matters 

which demonstrate the absence of a genuine material factual issue. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-

24 (“[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a 

summary judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on the ‘pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file.’”). Indeed, summary judgment 

should be entered, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to 

make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, 

and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See id. at 322. In such a 

circumstance, summary judgment must be granted, “so long as whatever is before the district 

court demonstrates that the standard for entry of summary judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is 

satisfied.” Id. at 323. 

To defeat summary judgment the opposing party must establish a genuine dispute as to a 

material issue of fact. This entails two requirements. First, the dispute must be over a fact(s) that 

is material, i.e., one that makes a difference in the outcome of the case. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 

248 (“Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law 

will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.’). Whether a factual dispute is material is 

Case 2:12-cv-01111-MCE-EFB Document 49 Filed 02/12/15 Page 4 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5 

determined by the substantive law applicable for the claim in question. Id. If the opposing party 

is unable to produce evidence sufficient to establish a required element of its claim that party fails 

in opposing summary judgment. “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element 

of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. 

at 322. 

Second, the dispute must be genuine. In determining whether a factual dispute is genuine 

the court must again focus on which party bears the burden of proof on the factual issue in 

question. Where the party opposing summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial on 

the factual issue in dispute, that party must produce evidence sufficient to support its factual 

claim. Conclusory allegations, unsupported by evidence are insufficient to defeat the motion. 

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989). Rather, the opposing party must, by affidavit 

or as otherwise provided by Rule 56, designate specific facts that show there is a genuine issue 

for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249; Devereaux, 263 F.3d at 1076. More significantly, to 

demonstrate a genuine factual dispute the evidence relied on by the opposing party must be such 

that a fair-minded jury “could return a verdict for [him] on the evidence presented.” Anderson, 

477 U.S. at 248, 252. Absent any such evidence there simply is no reason for trial. 

The court does not determine witness credibility. It believes the opposing party’s 

evidence, and draws inferences most favorably for the opposing party. See id. at 249, 255; 

Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. Inferences, however, are not drawn out of “thin air,” and the 

proponent must adduce evidence of a factual predicate from which to draw inferences. American 

Int'l Group, Inc. v. American Int'l Bank, 926 F.2d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 1991) (Kozinski, J., 

dissenting) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322). If reasonable minds could differ on material facts at 

issue, summary judgment is inappropriate. See Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th 

Cir. 1995). On the other hand, the opposing party “must do more than simply show that there is 

some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . . Where the record taken as a whole could 

not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for 

trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citation omitted). In that case, the court must grant 

summary judgment. 

Case 2:12-cv-01111-MCE-EFB Document 49 Filed 02/12/15 Page 5 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6 

Concurrent with the instant motion, defendant advised plaintiff of the requirements for 

opposing a motion pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Woods v. 

Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en 

banc), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1035 (1999); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988). 

B. Motion to Strike 

Defendant objects to plaintiff’s Exhibits B and E, offered in opposition to the motion for 

summary judgment. These exhibits contain various printed information of unknown provenance 

about knee ligament injuries. ECF No. 44 at 24-34, 41-44. Some pages of this information 

appear to originate from the internet, others from a text or journal. Defendant concedes that, “to 

survive summary judgment, a party does not necessarily have to produce evidence in a form that 

would be admissible at trial, as long as the party satisfies the requirements of Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 56.” Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036-37 (9th Cir. 2003). “In other 

words, when evidence is not presented in an admissible form in the context of a motion for 

summary judgment, but it may be presented in an admissible form at trial, a court may still 

consider that evidence.” Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1120 (E.D. 

Cal. 2006) (emphasis in original). Defendant nonetheless argues that Exhibits B and E are too 

unreliable to be considered in opposition to summary judgment. 

There is no question that Exhibit B and E’s ligament injury printouts and/or photocopies 

would not be admissible at trial in their current form. See Internet Specialties West, Inc. v. 

ISPWest, No. CV 05-3296 FMC (AJWx), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96373, at *3-4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 

19, 2006) (“To be authenticated, someone with knowledge of the accuracy of the contents of the 

internet print-outs must testify.”) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Jackson, 208 F.3d 

633, 638 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that evidence taken from the Internet lacked authentication 

where the proponent was unable to show that the information had been posted by the 

organizations to which she attributed it); Wady v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. of Am., 216 F. 

Supp. 2d 1060, 1064-65 (C.D. Cal. 2002); St. Clair v. Johnny's Oyster & Shrimp, Inc., 76 F. 

Supp. 2d 773, 775 (S.D. Tex. 1999) (“Anyone can put anything on the Internet. No web-site is 

monitored for accuracy and nothing contained therein is under oath or even subject to 

Case 2:12-cv-01111-MCE-EFB Document 49 Filed 02/12/15 Page 6 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

7 

independent verification absent underlying documentation.”). Unfortunately for plaintiff, nothing 

is presented or is otherwise before the court to support the position that the information in the 

exhibits could be presented in an admissible form at trial, as there is no indication where most of 

the information came from or anything that would indicate its veracity, reliability, or the 

existence of an individual who could testify that it is true. While some of the pages bear the 

imprint “The Open Rehabilitation Journal” (ECF No. 44 at 43-44), there is no affidavit 

authenticating these pages, nor any indication that the source is reliable. Accordingly, Exhibits 

and B (except for the initial page, which is a printout from plaintiff’s MRI report) and E cannot 

support plaintiff’s opposition to the motion. 

Defendant also seeks to strike plaintiff’s Exhibit N, which consists of three inmate 

declarations describing allegedly deficient care provided to them by defendant. ECF No. 44 at 

73-76. While this testimony could potentially be presented in a non-hearsay form through live 

testimony at trail, the court agrees with defendant that the content of these declarations is 

nonetheless inadmissible character evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404 and has not 

considered it in making the recommendation herein. 

III. Analysis 

A. Eighth Amendment Claim 

Plaintiff claims that defendant was deliberately indifferent to his knee injury in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of 

punishment and from inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 

1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006). Extreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions-ofconfinement claim, and only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s 

necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation. Hudson v. 

McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9, 112 S. Ct. 995, 117 L. Ed. 2d 156 (1992). “Prison officials have a duty 

to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter, food, clothing, sanitation, medical care, 

and personal safety. The circumstances, nature, and duration of a deprivation of these necessities 

must be considered in determining whether a constitutional violation has occurred. The more 

///// 

Case 2:12-cv-01111-MCE-EFB Document 49 Filed 02/12/15 Page 7 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

8 

basic the need, the shorter the time it can be withheld.” Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731-732 

(9th Cir. 2000) (quotations and citations omitted). 

To succeed on an Eighth Amendment claim predicated on the denial of medical care, a 

plaintiff must establish that: (1) he had a serious medical need and (2) the defendant’s response to 

that need was deliberately indifferent. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006); see 

also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A serious medical need exists if the failure to 

treat the condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton 

infliction of pain. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. A deliberately indifferent response may be shown by 

the denial, delay or intentional interference with medical treatment or by the way in which 

medical care was provided. Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988). To 

act with deliberate indifference, a prison 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). 

Thus, a defendant will be liable for violating the Eighth Amendment if he knows that 

plaintiff faces “a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take 

reasonable measures to abate it.” Id. at 847. “[I]t is enough that the official acted or failed to act 

despite his knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. at 842. 

A plaintiff does not have to establish that the defendant physician totally failed to treat 

him to show an Eighth Amendment violation, but must show wrongdoing amounting to more 

than medical negligence. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835 (“[D]eliberate indifference describes a state of 

mind more blameworthy than negligence.”); Ortiz v. City of Imperial, 884 F.2d 1312, 1314 (9th 

Cir. 1989). In addition, mere differences of opinion concerning the appropriate treatment cannot 

be the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation. Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 

1996); Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). On the other hand, a failure to 

provide access to medical staff that is competent to render care may constitute deliberate 

indifference in a particular case. Ortiz, 884 F.2d at 1314 (“[A]ccess to medical staff is 

meaningless unless that staff is competent and can render competent care.”). 

///// 

Case 2:12-cv-01111-MCE-EFB Document 49 Filed 02/12/15 Page 8 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

9 

Defendant does not dispute for the purposes of this motion that plaintiff’s knee injury 

presented a serious medical need. Defendant argues only that his response to the injury was not 

deliberately indifferent. Plaintiff’s complaint identifies three areas in which he claims 

defendant’s care was deficient: (1) failure to treat plaintiff on January 3, 2011; (2) failure to refer 

plaintiff for an MRI and to an orthopedist after plaintiff’s x-ray on January 24, 2011; and (3) 

failure to provide plaintiff with a double-hinged knee brace. 

As to plaintiff’s first complaint, defendant claims that he did treat plaintiff’s complaint of 

knee injury on January 3, 2011. Defendant declares, “Goods was called to my office [on that 

date] for an interview so that I could prepare a response to a grievance Goods had submitted 

related to his medical care . . . . I visually observed his knee and did not note any swelling or 

injury . . . . Based on my medical training and experience, my visual assessment of Goods’s 

knee, and my knowledge that Goods had osteoarthritis and prescription for pain management, I 

determined that additional medical treatment was not clinically indicated at that time.” ECF No. 

41-6 (defendant’s declaration ISO summary judgment), ¶ 6. Defendant’s proffered expert, Dr. 

Bruce Barnett, a physician employed by the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), opines that defendant’s care of plaintiff fell within the prevailing 

professional norm, based on his review of plaintiff’s health records, “relevant medical literature,” 

and his own training and experience. ECF No. 41-7 (declaration of B. Barnett), ¶ 11. 

Plaintiff contends that defendant refused to treat his knee injury on January 3rd, stating 

that plaintiff was called to his office solely to address the grievance plaintiff had filed. ECF No. 

44 at 3-5. Plaintiff disputes defendant’s claim that there was no swelling of the knee by pointing 

to a staff notation of the prior day, in which the author recorded his or her observation of swelling 

in plaintiff’s left knee. ECF No. 41-4 at 7 (staff note stating observation of “swelling to the left 

knee” dated January 2, 2011). Plaintiff also points out that on January 10, 2011, defendant 

himself wrote the notation “swelling decreased” in plaintiff’s chart. Id. at 16. If defendant had 

not seen swelling on the 3rd, argues plaintiff, how could he notice that it had decreased by the 

10th? Plaintiff argues that, if defendant had treated his knee injury on the 3rd, he would have 

provided him with the same care he provided later on the 10th (crutches, naproxen for swelling, 

Case 2:12-cv-01111-MCE-EFB Document 49 Filed 02/12/15 Page 9 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

10 

and an x-ray referral). ECF No. 1 at 4. The only notation from defendant regarding the January 

3, 2011 interaction bears no mention of plaintiff’s left knee injury but instead appears to be a 

response to a request from plaintiff for a cane, back brace, bed cushions, and egg crate mattress, 

which notes that plaintiff had prescriptions for Tramadol and ibuprofen. ECF No. 41-4 at 13. 

Plaintiff further calls Dr. Barnett’s impartiality into question, as an employee of CDCR. ECF No. 

44 at 1-2. 

Plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine dispute as to whether defendant treated or ignored 

plaintiff’s knee injury on January 3, 2011. The evidence indicating that swelling was present the 

day before and the week after that appointment supports the reasonable inference that is was 

present and noticeable on January 3, when plaintiff claims he sought treatment for it. Although 

defendant on this motion denies noticing it on January 3rd, a reasonable jury could rely on the 

report of January 2 and the defendant’s own notation on January 10 to discredit that assertion. In 

doing so, a jury could also consider the context of defendant having just summoned plaintiff to 

comment on his 602 complaint against defendant. While Dr. Barnett opines generally that 

defendant’s care was adequate, he does not state that a refusal to treat--if that is what occurred--is 

adequate. Further, a jury could reasonably discount the weight of his opinion in light of his 

employment relationship with CDCR as well as the other evidence bearing on the allegation of a 

refusal to treat. In summary, the credibility questions cannot be resolved on summary judgment 

and the evidence currently before the court would permit a jury to conclude that defendant failed 

to respond reasonably to plaintiff’s injury on January 3rd. 

As to the need for an MRI and/or orthopedic consultation, defendant declares that he 

considered several factors, including Dr. Bemrick’s x-ray report, at his follow-up appointment 

with plaintiff on January 24, 2011, in determining that plaintiff did not need either on January 24, 

2011. ECF No. 41-6, ¶ 8. According to defendant, on that day plaintiff reported that he was 

feeling better and the swelling of the knee had decreased. Id.; ECF No. 41-4 at 20 (chart note 

authored by defendant on January 24, 2011, stating, “He states feeling better, swelling down, 

complains of pain.”). Plaintiff could walk with crutches. ECF No. 41-6, ¶ 8. Defendant 

performed “a lateral stress test, anterior drawer test, and posterior drawer test” on plaintiff’s left 

Case 2:12-cv-01111-MCE-EFB Document 49 Filed 02/12/15 Page 10 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

11 

knee, all of which came out negative. Id. He diagnosed plaintiff with “left knee injury or strain, 

effusion, and possible internal derangement.” Id. He told plaintiff to keep taking Tramadol for 

pain and keep using the crutches and referred him to physical therapy. Id. Dr. Barnett again 

opines that defendant’s care was adequate. ECF No. 41-7 at ¶ 11. 

Plaintiff argues that defendant performed the knee tests incorrectly either due to 

incompetence or in a deliberate attempt to obscure plaintiff’s injury, as a later MRI in fact 

revealed plaintiff to have multiple ligament tears. ECF No. 44 at 5-7. Plaintiff flatly contradicts 

defendant’s assertion that plaintiff told defendant on January 24, 2011 that he was feeling better. 

Id. at 6. He notes that the MRI of March 7, 2011 also revealed swelling, indicating that plaintiff’s 

knee had continued to be swollen from the time it was injured through that date. ECF No. 41-4 at 

27 (MRI report noting multiple areas of edema in the left knee). Again, the court cannot resolve 

credibility on summary judgment and the rationale offered for not performing the MRI 

recommended by Dr. Bemrick is predicated on a statement attributed to plaintiff that he denies 

making. Further, a jury’s credibility assessment on this issue will be informed by how it 

evaluates the evidence and resolves credibility as to the refusal to treat allegations. In short, the 

court has conflicting evidence and testimony demonstrating genuine disputes bearing on the 

question of whether it was reasonable for defendant not to order an orthopedic consult and/or 

MRI on January 24, 2011. The issue is thus not appropriate for summary adjudication. 

As to plaintiff’s claim that defendant, with deliberate indifference, failed to provide him 

with the proper, double-hinged, knee brace, defendant argues that he ordered the brace for 

plaintiff in accord with Dr. Dowbak’s recommendation in June 2011, subject to approval by 

custodial staff, but determined in October 2011 (plaintiff had not received the brace in the 

interim) that plaintiff did not need such a brace. Plaintiff had three left knee braces at that time, 

but none with a double hinge. ECF No. 41-6 at ¶ 11. Defendant 

noted that Goods ambulated without any difficulty, completed his activities of 

daily living without any limitations, and exercised regularly. My examination of 

Goods’s UHR [institutional medical record] led me to believe that Goods 

ambulated without difficulty or limitation during his most recent encounters with 

healthcare providers. I conducted a physical examination, noting no effusion, 

laxity, or joint tenderness in the knee. I observed that Goods was able to sit, 

stand, squat, and walk without any limitation. I reviewed the medical chart, MRI, 

Case 2:12-cv-01111-MCE-EFB Document 49 Filed 02/12/15 Page 11 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

12 

and orthopedist recommendations regarding Goods’s knee. Based upon my 

complete clinical assessment, it was my medical opinion that a double-hinged 

knee brace with metal components was not clinically indicated given Goods’s 

high level of functioning. 

Id. 

 In support of defendant’s claim that it was reasonable to deny plaintiff the double-hinged 

brace, Dr. Barnett declares that he had a conversation with Dr. Dowbak, provides his own 

summary of portions of that conversation, and states that he has additionally relied on that 

conversation in forming his opinion that it was reasonable to deny the brace. ECF No. 41-7 at 

¶ 9. Dr. Barnett provides these excerpts from his conversation with Dr. Dowbak: (1) that Dr. 

Dowbak “expressed his professional opinion that providing Goods a knee brace with metal hinges 

was not a medical necessity insofar as the brace was not needed to protect life”; (2) that “the 

medical literature does not establish that knee braces necessarily prevent further injury”; and (3) 

“that it would thus be reasonable, notwithstanding his initial recommendation, to not provide a 

double hinged knee brace for a number of reasons.” ECF No. 41-7 at ¶ 9. 

 Dr. Dowbak’s statements to Dr. Barnett are hearsay. The Ninth Circuit has held that, 

under Federal Rule of Evidence 703, experts may rely on hearsay if it is “that type of information 

upon which experts may reasonably rely.” United States v. Sims, 514 F.2d 147, 149-50 (9th Cir. 

1975). Perhaps Dr. Barnett’s conversation with Dr. Dowbak falls within this exception to the 

hearsay rule, but it is unclear. The court declines to rely on it to grant summary judgment on this 

record given Rule 703’s additional command—where the facts relied on by the expert would 

otherwise be inadmissible, the expert may disclose them to the factfinder “only if their probative 

value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.” 

The court finds the use of the hearsay information from Dr. Dowbak in Dr. Barnett’s declaration 

problematic. The statements provided are isolated from the entire conversation and the absence 

of context may obscure their meaning. Defendant has not provided a declaration from Dr. 

Dowbak, so that the court could view the entire scope of his opinion, including portions that may 

not favor defendant. Nor is there a deposition of Dr. Dowbak that would serve that purpose. The 

portions that are provided are of limited value, as the question in this case is not whether plaintiff 

Case 2:12-cv-01111-MCE-EFB Document 49 Filed 02/12/15 Page 12 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

13 

needed the brace in order to live, but rather whether denying it would subject plaintiff to 

unnecessary and wanton suffering.2 Accordingly, at this point in the proceedings, the probative 

value of Dr. Barnett’s declaration insofar as it relies on or summarizes his conversation with Dr. 

Dowbak does not substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect. Further, this factual dispute is not 

presented in isolation. How a jury ultimately assesses credibility and resolves the dispute over 

the alleged refusal to treat, and the dispute concerning the statement Dr. Barnett attributes to 

plaintiff in articulating the reason for not obtaining the MRI that had been recommended by Dr. 

Bemrick could significantly influence the jury’s factual finding as to the articulated basis for 

denying the double-hinged brace recommended by Dr. Dowbak. 

Plaintiff disputes that he could ambulate without difficulty after he sustained his left knee 

injury. ECF No. 44 at 10. He states that he has not exercised since sustaining the injury because 

of pain and instability in that knee. Id. He also claims that defendant did not perform the 

examinations of his knee that defendant states he has done (and that he recorded in plaintiff’s 

medical records). Id. at 11. 

While this last issue is a close one, plaintiff has shown a genuine dispute for trial. The 

evidence at trial may show that defendant’s determination that plaintiff did not need the doublehinged brace was not deliberately indifferent, but merely an acceptable difference of opinion 

between himself, on one side, and Dr. Dowbak and plaintiff, on the other side. However, plaintiff 

disputes defendant’s characterization of his mobility, pain, and swelling. There is evidence to 

support plaintiff’s version of the facts but the disputes will turn on credibility which is for the jury 

to determine. The court cannot resolve credibility on the paper record. At this stage in the 

proceedings, viewing the evidence most favorably to plaintiff, plaintiff has raised a triable dispute 

as to whether it was reasonable to deny plaintiff the brace. 

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s request for summary adjudication of plaintiff’s 

Eighth Amendment claim must be denied. 

///// 

 2

 In addition, plaintiff has raised a question about Dr. Barnett’s impartiality in the context 

of the two other disputes addressed above. 

Case 2:12-cv-01111-MCE-EFB Document 49 Filed 02/12/15 Page 13 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

14 

B. Retaliation Claim 

Plaintiff also claims that the motivation for defendant denying him proper medical care 

was the fact that plaintiff had filed grievances against defendant. The Ninth Circuit summarized 

the law governing such a claim in Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012): 

Prisoners have a First Amendment right to file grievances against prison officials 

and to be free from retaliation for doing so. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 

1269 (9th Cir. 2009). A retaliation claim has five elements. Id. First, the plaintiff 

must allege that the retaliated-against conduct is protected. The filing of an inmate 

grievance is protected conduct. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 568 (9th Cir. 

2005). Second, the plaintiff must claim the defendant took adverse action against 

the plaintiff. Id. at 567. The adverse action need not be an independent 

constitutional violation. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995). 

“[T]he mere threat of harm can be an adverse action . . . .” Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 

1270. 

Third, the plaintiff must allege a causal connection between the adverse action 

and the protected conduct. Because direct evidence of retaliatory intent rarely can 

be pleaded in a complaint, allegation of a chronology of events from which 

retaliation can be inferred is sufficient to survive dismissal. See Pratt, 65 F.3d at 

808 (“timing can properly be considered as circumstantial evidence of retaliatory 

intent”); Murphy v. Lane, 833 F.2d 106, 108-09 (7th Cir. 1987). 

Fourth, the plaintiff must allege that the “official’s acts would chill or silence a 

person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities.” Robinson, 

408 F.3d at 568 (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). “[A] plaintiff 

who fails to allege a chilling effect may still state a claim if he alleges he suffered 

some other harm,” Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1269, that is “more than minimal,” 

Robinson, 408 F.3d at 568 n.11. That the retaliatory conduct did not chill the 

plaintiff from suing the alleged retaliator does not defeat the retaliation claim at 

the motion to dismiss stage. Id. at 569. 

Fifth, the plaintiff must allege “that the prison authorities’ retaliatory action did 

not advance legitimate goals of the correctional institution . . . .” Rizzo v. 

Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 1985). A plaintiff successfully pleads this 

element by alleging, in addition to a retaliatory motive, that the defendant’s 

actions were arbitrary and capricious, id., or that they were “unnecessary to the 

maintenance of order in the institution,” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1230 

(9th Cir. 1984). 

Defendant argues that, because the undisputed facts show that his care of plaintiff was reasonable, 

plaintiff cannot show any adverse action. ECF No. 41-1 at 17-18. However, as discussed above, 

triable issues of material fact exists over whether defendant’s care was reasonable and would 

satisfy Eighth Amendment standards. Defendant also argues that plaintiff has produced no 

evidence showing that defendant was motivated by a retaliatory purpose. Yet, the evidence 

before the court clearly shows that defendant was treating (or refusing to treat) plaintiff’s injury 

Case 2:12-cv-01111-MCE-EFB Document 49 Filed 02/12/15 Page 14 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

15 

contemporaneously with responding to at least one grievance filed by plaintiff and specifically 

called plaintiff in to tell him that. Further, plaintiff has stated in his verified complaint that 

defendant was dismissive of his injury on January 3, 2011, telling plaintiff he was only going to 

address plaintiff’s grievance on that day. ECF No. 1 at 4. This evidence would permit a 

reasonable jury to infer that defendant’s conduct was motivated by a retaliatory purpose, and 

summary judgment on plaintiff’s retaliation claim is therefore not appropriate. 

C. Qualified Immunity 

A § 1983 defendant may be granted qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate a 

clearly-established right of which a reasonable person would have known. Saucier v. Katz, 533 

U.S. 194, 201 (2001). Defendant argues that his conduct did not violate plaintiff’s rights, so he 

should be granted qualified immunity.3

 As discussed at length above, triable issues of fact remain 

to be adjudicated on whether defendant did violate plaintiff’s rights. Therefore, defendant is not 

entitled to a grant of qualified immunity at this time. 

IV. Order and Recommendation

For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant’s June 3, 2014 

motion to strike (ECF No. 46) is granted. 

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that defendant’s March 26, 2014 motion for summary 

judgment (ECF No. 41) be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

///// 

 3

 Defendant additionally argues that he should be granted qualified immunity because his 

conduct was reasonable. This semantical restatement of defendant’s argument that he did not 

violate plaintiff’s rights, is subject to the identical analysis. The crux of the constitutional 

questions is whether defendant’s care of plaintiff was reasonable and whether the alleged failure 

to treat was due to a retaliatory motive. Disputed issues of material fact preclude summary 

judgment as to both claims. 

Case 2:12-cv-01111-MCE-EFB Document 49 Filed 02/12/15 Page 15 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

16 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: February 12, 2015. 

Case 2:12-cv-01111-MCE-EFB Document 49 Filed 02/12/15 Page 16 of 16