Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05724/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05724-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEROME BORDELON, F23499, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICHAEL MINDORO, M.D., et al., 

Defendant(s). 

Case No. 17-cv-05724-CRB (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

(ECF No. 28) 

Plaintiff Jerome Bordelon, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training 

Facility (CTF) in Soledad, California, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging 

delay/denial of medical treatment. Plaintiff specifically alleges that medical personnel at CTF 

ignored his complaints of severe chest pains and difficulty breathing for months, “until he suffered 

a heart attack and almost died.” Compl. (ECF No.1) at 4. Plaintiff further alleges that his requests 

for help through administrative appeals were to no avail despite reviewers “examining [his] 

grievance and his medical file.” Id. at 10. Plaintiff seeks $5,000,000 in damages for deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

On January 31, 2018, the Court found that Plaintiff’s allegations, liberally construed, 

appear to state a cognizable claim for damages under § 1983 for deliberate indifference to serious 

medical needs against the six named defendants – Drs. Michael Mindoro, A. Mulligan-Pfile, 

Steven Posson, Robert Wlodarczyk and G. Palomero at CTF, and Deputy Director J. Lewis of the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in Sacramento – and ordered the 

United States Marshal to serve them. Jan. 31, 2018 Order (ECF No. 11) at 2.1

 

 

1

 Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Dr. Wlodarczyk as a defendant in this action after the marshal 

was unable to serve him at CTF because he is a private practitioner not employed by CDCR. 

Opp’n (ECF No. 39) at 1, n.1. 

Case 3:17-cv-05724-CRB Document 44 Filed 04/01/19 Page 1 of 12
2 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Defendants now move for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on 

the ground that there are no material facts in dispute and that they are entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law. Defendants specifically argue that there is no evidence that: (1) Dr. Mindoro was 

deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs in connection with the medical care he 

provided Plaintiff at CTF; or (2) Dr. Mulligan-Pfile, Dr. Posson, Dr. Palomero or Deputy Director 

Lewis were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs in connection with their 

review of Plaintiff’s administrative grievance. Plaintiff has filed an opposition (ECF No. 39) and 

Defendants have filed a reply (ECF No. 36).2 3

BACKGROUND 

A. Medical Treatment 

 Plaintiff arrived at CTF in March 2014. Mindoro Decl. (ECF No. 29) ¶ 6. His medical 

history included asthma, hypertension, depression, a deformed right wrist, and a heart murmur 

with an enlarged heart valve. Id. He has no family history of heart disease. Id. ¶ 23. 

 Dr. Michael Mindoro was Plaintiff’s primary care physician at CTF. Id. ¶ 3. Dr. Mindoro 

is board-certified in family medicine. Id. ¶ 2. 

Dr. Mindoro first examined Plaintiff on May 7, 2014. Id. ¶ 7. At that time, Plaintiff 

reported no chest pain, but claimed heart palpitations were limiting his mobility. Id. Dr. Mindoro 

requested Plaintiff’s prior medical records and noted that Plaintiff had a recent normal 

electrocardiogram (EKG).4

 Id. 

 

2

 Plaintiff’s opposition and Defendants’ reply were both filed on January 8, 2019. Because it 

appeared that Defendants may not have received all of Plaintiff’s documents before filing their 

reply, the Court requested that they submit a supplemental reply. Jan. 11, 2019 Order (ECF No. 

41) at 1. But on January 31, 2019, Defendants informed the Court that their previously filed reply 

contained their response to Plaintiff’s opposition. Not. (ECF No. 43) at 1. 

3

 Plaintiff filed a “Request for Production of Documents” several weeks after he filed his 

opposition (and supporting declaration and documentary evidence) and Defendants filed their 

reply. See Req. (ECF No. 42). But even if the filing is liberally construed as a request for a 

continuance to conduct additional discovery under Rule 56(d), the court finds that a continuance is 

not in order because plaintiff does not make clear “what information is sought and how it would 

preclude summary judgment.” Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 1998). 

4

 An EKG is a paper or digital recording of the electrical signals in the heart. It is also called an 

electrocardiogram or an ECG. An EKG is used to determine heart rate, heart rhythm, and other 

information regarding the condition of the heart. 

Case 3:17-cv-05724-CRB Document 44 Filed 04/01/19 Page 2 of 12
3 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

 Dr. Mindoro next saw Plaintiff on March 7, 2015. Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff reported no chest pain, 

dizziness, or lightheadedness, but he again said he experienced occasional palpitations when 

walking. Id. Dr. Mindoro assessed that the palpitations might be related to anxiety. Id. 

 Dr. Mindoro saw Plaintiff again on February 10, 2016. Id. ¶ 9. Plaintiff complained of 

continued palpitations under circumstances where he walked more than 75 yards, but he said that 

they resolved with rest. Id. Dr. Mindoro assessed Plaintiff’s condition as atypical angina.5 Dr. 

Mindoro filled out a Physician’s Request for Services (RFS) for an urgent stress test, which was 

scheduled for February 25, 2016. Id. 

 Plaintiff saw Dr. Jerry H. Ginsburg,6 a cardiologist, at the Salinas-Monterey Heart Institute 

on February 17, 2016 for an echocardiogram.7 Id. ¶ 10. The results showed mild or normal 

functioning of the ventricle and mild backflow of the valves. Id. 

 On February 24, 2016, Plaintiff was brought to CTF’s emergency department on a gurney, 

complaining of chest wall and abdominal pain. Id. ¶ 11. After Plaintiff was given Almacone,8 he 

reported that his pain decreased from a nine out of ten to a two out of ten, and he was returned to 

his cell. Id. At that point, Dr. Mindoro saw no indication that cardiac medication was necessary. 

Id. 

 As scheduled, on February 25, 2016, Plaintiff took a treadmill stress test. Id. ¶ 12. After 

73 seconds, he experienced severe chest pain on the left side and had to stop. Id. But his ECG 

was equivocal. Id. 

 The following day, Plaintiff reported to Dr. Mindoro that he was experiencing continued 

chest pain with walking. Id. ¶ 13. Because Dr. Mindoro believed Plaintiff’s chest pain needed 

 

5

 Atypical angina is the presence of substernal chest pain or discomfort, provoked by exertion or 

emotional stress and relieved by rest. 

6

 Dr. Ginsburg is not a party to this suit. 

7

 An echocardiogram tests the action of the heart using ultrasound waves to produce a visual 

display. 

8

 Almacone is a combination medicine used to treat heartburn, acid indigestion, upset stomach, 

and bloating caused by gas. 

Case 3:17-cv-05724-CRB Document 44 Filed 04/01/19 Page 3 of 12
4 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

additional investigation, he put in an urgent RFS for a Lexiscan.9

 On February 29, 2016, Plaintiff again reported to CTF’s emergency department with chest 

pain and difficulty breathing. Id. ¶ 14. Upon orders by Dr. Yusufzai,10 Plaintiff was sent to 

Salinas Valley Medical Hospital’s emergency department. Id. 

 A Lexiscan stress test performed the following day indicated a non-ischemic, or 

unremarkable, response. Id. ¶ 15. Plaintiff’s troponins11 were negative, and he was discharged 

back to CTF with no new recommendations regarding his medication management. Id. 

 On March 3, 2016, Dr. Mindoro again saw Plaintiff and put in an RFS for another 

echocardiogram to evaluate the progression of his heart disorder. Id. ¶ 16. 

 On March 17, 2016, Dr. Ginsburg performed the transthoracic echocardiogram that Dr. 

Mindoro had requested. Id. ¶ 17. The results showed mild left ventricular enlargement with an 

ejection fraction of 61%, which would not explain Plaintiff’s shortness of breath when active. 

Plaintiff reported no chest pain at this time. Id. 

 On March 26, 2016, Dr. Mindoro discussed the echocardiogram results with Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 

18. Dr. Mindoro considered putting in an RFS for a pulmonary function test. Id. He “had doubts 

about” a cardiac explanation for Plaintiff’s symptoms because the various cardiac function tests he 

had requested thus far had indicated only mild or normal results. Id. Dr. Mindoro still saw no 

indication that cardiac medication was necessary. Id. 

 Dr. Mindoro next saw Plaintiff on April 25, 2016. Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff reported chest pain 

upon exertion and walking, but no palpitations or shortness of breath. Id. Concerned about 

Plaintiff’s continued chest pain, Dr. Mindoro put in an RFS for another cardiology consultation 

and a chest X-ray. Id. 

 

9

 A Lexiscan Myocardial Perfusion Imaging test uses a radioactive imaging agent to produce 

pictures of the heart muscle. The imaging gives off a small amount of radiation that can be seen 

with a special camera. 

10 Dr. Yusufzai is not a party to this suit. 

11 Troponins are proteins released when the heart muscle has been damaged, which occurs during 

a heart attack. The extent of damage to the heart correlates with the amount of troponin present in 

the blood. 

Case 3:17-cv-05724-CRB Document 44 Filed 04/01/19 Page 4 of 12
5 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

 The chest X-ray conducted at Dr. Mindoro’s request on May 4, 2016 showed that 

Plaintiff’s lungs were free of acute infiltrates and appeared normally vascularized. Id. ¶ 20. The 

cardiomediastinal12 silhouette was within normal limits. Id. Degenerative changes were present 

within the thoracic spine, but no acute cardiopulmonary disease was identified. Id. Another 

cardiology consultation was approved pending scheduling. Id. ¶ 21. 

 On May 31, 2016, Plaintiff returned from the cardiology consultation and reported to Dr. 

Mindoro that the cardiologist recommended a coronary angiography.13 Id. ¶ 22. 

 On June 9, 2016, Plaintiff told Dr. Mindoro that he had not been experiencing palpitations, 

but he had symptoms of angina while walking. Id. ¶ 23. Plaintiff described his symptoms as 

burning pressure over the left side of his chest, precipitated by exercise but relieved by rest. Id. 

 On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff saw another cardiologist, Dr. Robert Wlodarczyk,14 who 

recommended a left heart catherization for an angiogram.15 Id. ¶ 24. 

 On July 8, 2016, Plaintiff reported to Dr. Mindoro that he was still experiencing the same 

symptoms as those he had reported at his last visit a month earlier, lasting less than five minutes 

each time and relieved by rest. Id. ¶ 25. Dr. Mindoro put in an RFS for the angiogram that Dr. 

Wlodarczyk had recommended, and an appointment was set for August 9, 2016. Id. 

 On August 9, 2016, the results of the angiogram showed acute calcified coronary vessels. 

Id. ¶ 26. Dr. Wlodarczyk immediately requested a cardiothoracic surgery consultation. Id. A 

quadruple coronary bypass grafting operation was performed that same day by Dr. Reza 

Khodaverdian and two assistants.16 

 The following day, Dr. Mindoro submitted an RFS for Plaintiff’s emergency hospital 

 

12 “Cardiomediastinal” refers to the heart and the vessels of the heart and lungs. 

13 A coronary angiography is a procedure that consists of putting a tube in the arm to access the 

heart. 

14 Dr. Wlodarczyk was voluntarily dismissed as a defendant in this suit. See supra at 2, n.1. 

15 An angiogram is an X-ray image of blood vessels. The vessels can be seen because a contrast 

dye within them blocks the X-rays from developing an imaging film. 16 Neither Dr. Reza Khodaverdian nor the surgical assistants are parties to this suit. 

Case 3:17-cv-05724-CRB Document 44 Filed 04/01/19 Page 5 of 12
6 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

admission for cardiac surgery. Id. ¶ 28. 

 On August 23, 2016, Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital to CTF’s Outpatient 

Hospital Unit (OHU). Id. ¶ 29. He was prescribed post-cardiac bypass medications of colchicine, 

Lipitor, a beta-blocker and aspirin. Id. While at OHU, Plaintiff was under the care of Dr. Laurie 

Hedden.17 

 On October 6, 2016, almost two weeks after Plaintiff had been discharged from OHU, he 

again saw Dr. Mindoro. Id. ¶ 30. Plaintiff reported that he had occasional palpitations and had to 

use an incentive spirometer18 daily because the incision from his surgery was interfering with his 

deep breathing. Id. Dr. Mindoro ordered tests for iron deficiency anemia, a reticulocyte count, 

and a follow-up with cardiology. Id. 

B. Administrative Grievance Process 

On November 30, 2016, Dr. Mulligan-Pfile and Dr. Palomero denied a grievance that 

Plaintiff filed against Dr. Mindoro based upon the above sequence of events. Id. ¶ 31. Plaintiff 

alleged that had Dr. Mindoro and other CTF medical staff properly treated his chest pain, the 

surgery and resulting discomfort could have been avoided. Id. 

On December 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Second Level Appeal indicating his dissatisfaction 

with the earlier denial. Id. ¶ 32. On January 20, 2017, Chief Medical Executive Dr. Posson 

denied Plaintiff’s appeal. Id. 

 On May 8, 2017, Deputy Director Lewis denied Plaintiff’s grievance at the Director’s 

Level, exhausting the administrative remedies available to address his complaint. Id. ¶ 33. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show that there 

is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the [moving party] is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those which may affect the outcome of 

the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material 

fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the 

nonmoving party. Id. 

The moving party for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those 

portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence of a genuine 

 

17 Dr. Hedden is not a party to this suit. 

18 An incentive spirometer is a device used to improve the functioning of the lungs. The patient 

inhales from the device as slowly and deeply as possible, then holds his breath for two to six 

seconds. 

Case 3:17-cv-05724-CRB Document 44 Filed 04/01/19 Page 6 of 12
7 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Where the moving 

party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, it must affirmatively demonstrate that no 

reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party. But on an issue for which the 

opposing party will have the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need only point out “that 

there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. 

Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the 

pleadings to demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact by “citing to specific 

parts of materials in the record” or “showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence 

or presence of a genuine dispute.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A triable dispute of material fact exists 

only if there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party to allow a jury to return a verdict 

for that party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. If the nonmoving party fails to make this showing, “the 

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. 

There is no genuine issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the 

nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. If the 

evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. 

Id. at 249–50. 

B. Analysis 

Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment if they are “deliberate[ly] indifferen[t] to [a 

prisoner’s] serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A medical need is 

serious if failure to treat it will result in “significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton 

infliction of pain.” Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1081 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted). A prison official is “deliberately indifferent” to that need if he 

“knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 

837 (1994). 

A difference of opinion between a prisoner and a physician concerning what medical care 

is appropriate does not amount to deliberate indifference. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 987 

(9th Cir. 2012) overruled on other grounds by Peralta, 744 F.3d 1076; Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 

240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). Even proof that a physician was negligent or committed medical 

malpractice is insufficient to make out a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 

835–36 & n.4; Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). To show deliberate 

Case 3:17-cv-05724-CRB Document 44 Filed 04/01/19 Page 7 of 12
8 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the prisoner-plaintiff must show that the 

course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and 

that they chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health. Snow, 

681 F.3d at 988; Toguchi, 391 F. 3d at 1058; Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 

1996). 

In order to prevail on a § 1983 claim for damages against an individual defendant, a 

prisoner-plaintiff must show that the defendant’s deliberate indifference was the “actual and 

proximate cause” of the deprivation of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel 

and unusual punishment. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). The “inquiry into 

causation must be individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual 

defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused the constitutional deprivation.” Id. 

at 633. 

1. Medical Treatment 

 Plaintiff claims that Dr. Mindoro was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs 

by failing to identify and treat his heart condition in a timely manner. But Defendants 

persuasively argue that Dr. Mindoro is entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff has not set 

forth any probative evidence showing that the course of treatment that Dr. Mindoro provided to 

Plaintiff was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and that Dr. Mindoro chose this 

course of treatment in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to Plaintiff’s health. See Snow, 

681 F.3d at 988; Toguchi, 391 F. 3d at 1058. 

 First, there is no probative evidence in the record showing that Dr. Mindoro’s treatment 

decisions were medically unacceptable under the circumstances. Dr. Mindoro put in five RFS’s 

for various methods to investigate Plaintiff’s symptoms, adjusting the urgency and type of each 

request in response to changes in Plaintiff’s health. He also repeatedly sent Plaintiff to cardiac 

specialists, and he followed the recommendations of specialists regarding Plaintiff’s care. 

Notably, even specialists faced difficulty diagnosing Plaintiff’s condition in light of multiple tests 

that returned mild to normal results. Plaintiff nonetheless argues that Dr. Mindoro should have 

requested a new EKG upon his arrival to CTF and should not have waited a year between his 2014 

Case 3:17-cv-05724-CRB Document 44 Filed 04/01/19 Page 8 of 12
9 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

and 2015 examinations. But Plaintiff sets forth no evidence that Dr. Mindoro’s early treatment 

decisions were medically unacceptable. There is no evidence that Plaintiff’s symptoms were 

serious enough in 2014 and 2015 to warrant targeted visits before his next physical, for example. 

Plaintiff also takes issue with Dr. Mindoro’s assessment that his palpitations in 2015 were related 

to anxiety, but he offers no evidence that Dr. Mindoro’s assessment of the palpitations was 

medically unacceptable and it is well established that a mere difference of opinion between a 

prisoner and a physician concerning what medical care is appropriate does not constitute 

deliberate indifference. See Snow, 681 F.3d at 987.19 

 Second, there is no probative evidence in the record showing that Dr. Mindoro acted with 

conscious disregard of an excessive risk to Plaintiff’s health. Plaintiff claims that “(Being a 

medical professional, ‘TRAINED IN MEDICAL’) such conduct completes the requisite state of 

mind for a claim of ‘deliberate indifference.’” Opp’n at 3. But conscious disregard requires a 

purposeful act or failure to act on the part of the defendant. McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 

1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled in part on other grounds by WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 

104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc)). There is no evidence whatsoever of any such 

purposeful act or failure to act here. Nor is there any evidence that Dr. Mindoro ever believed 

that his elected course of treatment for Plaintiff ever presented an excessive risk to Plaintiff’s 

health. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1051 (summary judgment appropriate where there is no 

indication that doctor was aware of a risk or believed selected course of treatment presented a 

serious risk). The record instead shows that Dr. Mindoro provided Plaintiff extensive medical 

care and that his persistence in exploring Plaintiff’s ongoing symptoms ultimately resulted in 

treatment of a serious heart condition before it proved fatal. Plaintiff’s contention that Dr. 

Mindoro should have done more sooner may be sufficient to state a claim for negligence or 

 

19 Plaintiff asserts that “the rendering of medical services by unqualified personnel is ‘deliberate 

indifference,’” Opp’n at 7 (quoting Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1112 (9th Cir. 1986)), 

and points out that Dr. Mindoro “admits he is not a Cardiologist,” id. But unlike the nurses, 

medical technical assistants and inmate workers in Toussaint, Dr. Mindoro is licensed in family 

medicine and qualified to perform the initial medical assessments he performed on Plaintiff. Cf. 

Toussaint, 801 F.2d at 1112. Dr. Mindoro then referred any procedures requiring a specialization 

in cardiology to cardiac experts and followed their recommendations. There is no evidence that 

there was any rendering of medical services by unqualified personnel here. 

Case 3:17-cv-05724-CRB Document 44 Filed 04/01/19 Page 9 of 12
10 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

medical malpractice in state court, but it is insufficient to make out a violation of the Eighth 

Amendment under § 1983. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835-36 & n.4; Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058, 

1060. 

Dr. Mindoro is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s claim that 

Dr. Mindoro was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. See Celotex, 477 

U.S. at 323. The Court is satisfied that, based on the evidence in the record, no reasonable jury 

could find that Dr. Mindoro’s medical decisions regarding the management of Plaintiff’s health 

constituted deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. 

2. Administrative Grievance Process 

 Plaintiff claims that Dr. Mulligan-Pfile, Dr. Posson, Dr. Palomero, and Deputy Director 

Lewis were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to adequately respond 

to his administrative grievance. But Defendants persuasively argue that Dr. Mulligan-Pfile, Dr. 

Posson, Dr. Palomero, and Deputy Director Lewis are entitled to summary judgment because there 

is no evidence that any one of them knew of any issues relating to Plaintiff’s heart condition 

before Plaintiff had heart surgery and filed an administrative grievance alleging that he could have 

avoided heart surgery had Dr. Mindoro properly treated his chest pain. 

 The undisputed evidence in the record makes clear that Dr. Mulligan-Pfile, Dr. Posson, Dr. 

Palomero, and Deputy Director Lewis never personally treated plaintiff’s heart condition. Their 

involvement in the medical care of Plaintiff’s heart condition was limited to their review and 

rejection of Plaintiff’s administrative grievance that he could have avoided heart surgery had Dr. 

Mindoro properly treated his chest pain. And their involvement in the review and rejection of 

Plaintiff’s administrative grievance was not until after Plaintiff had the heart surgery which he 

now claims could have been avoided. Plaintiff may disagree with the reviewers’ rejection of his 

post-injury administrative grievance, but that’s not enough to establish that the reviewers’ 

rejection of his post-injury administrative grievance amounted to deliberate indifference. There is 

no evidence whatsoever that Dr. Mulligan-Pfile, Dr. Posson, Dr. Palomero, or Deputy Director 

Lewis “kn[ew] of and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to [Plaintiff’s] health” when they reviewed 

Case 3:17-cv-05724-CRB Document 44 Filed 04/01/19 Page 10 of 12
11 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

and rejected Plaintiff’s post-injury administrative grievance. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. 

Dr. Mulligan-Pfile, Dr. Posson, Dr. Palomero, and Deputy Director Lewis are entitled to 

summary judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s claim that they were deliberately indifferent to 

Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The Court is satisfied that, based 

on the evidence in the record, no reasonable jury could find that Dr. Mulligan-Pfile’s, Dr. 

Posson’s, Dr. Palomero’s, or Deputy Director Lewis’ review and rejection of Plaintiff’s 

administrative grievance constituted deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 28) is 

GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 1, 2019 

______________________________________ 

CHARLES R. BREYER 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-05724-CRB Document 44 Filed 04/01/19 Page 11 of 12
12 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEROME BORDELON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICHAEL MINDORO, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-05724-CRB 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California. 

That on April 1, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 

Jerome Bordelon ID: F-23499, L-B 249

Correctional Training Facility

P.O. Box 705 

Soledad, CA 93960-0705 

Dated: April 1, 2019 

Susan Y. Soong 

Clerk, United States District Court 

By:________________________ 

Lashanda Scott, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable CHARLES R. BREYER 

Case 3:17-cv-05724-CRB Document 44 Filed 04/01/19 Page 12 of 12