Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00164/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00164-20/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS J. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0164 DFL EFB P

vs.

R. W. SANDHAM, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On February 23, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304,

this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the court adopts the findings and recommendations as to plaintiff’s claim that defendants violated

his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him a corneal transplant. As to this claim, the court

Case 2:05-cv-00164-JAM-EFB Document 103 Filed 03/29/07 Page 1 of 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

2

finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

For the following reasons, the court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations

as to plaintiff’s claim that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him the

Muracel 1% eye drops. 

First, plaintiff states that he had complained to defendants that he began to suffer from

headaches and dizziness only after defendants prescribed him Muracel 0.5%. Plaintiff states he

always used Muracel 1% before he was transferred to Concoran State Prison.

Second, plaintiff has provided evidence that suggests defendants were aware that Muracel

0.5% was inadequate. Defendants took plaintiff to see an eye specialist, who prescribed plaintiff

eye drops even stronger than Muracel 1%: Muracel 1.28%. A reasonable jury may conclude that

Dr. Rohlfing, Dr. Steen, and Dr. Mangis, plaintiff’s treating physicians, knew of the eye

specialist’s finding because it was in plaintiff’s medical file. A reasonable jury may conclude

that Dr. Sandham, the chief medical officer, knew of the finding because plaintiff claimed in his

prison administrative appeal that his treating physicians were not giving him the eye drops the

specialist prescribed, and Dr. Sandham reviewed that appeal. 

Finally, plaintiff has proivded evidence that Dr. Rohlfing may have intentionally denied

plaintiff the requisite strength eye drops. According to plaintiff, Dr. Rohlfing told plaintiff that

he could not dispense Muracel 1% because the prison pharmacy did not keep it in stock. But

plaintiff has provided evidence that Dr. Rohlfing could have obtained the eye drops from an

outside pharmacy and that Dr. Rohlfing denied a request to do so. 

Plaintiff’s showing is sufficient to raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding

whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs when they prescribed him

less potent eye drops.

 The court also finds that plaintiff attempts to state a § 1983 claim based on Dr. Mangis’s

and Dr. Sandham’s allegedly improper handling and disposition of his case during the prison

appeals process. The magistrate judge did not address this claim in the findings and

Case 2:05-cv-00164-JAM-EFB Document 103 Filed 03/29/07 Page 2 of 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

3

recommendations. Plaintiff, however, cannot challenge the processing of his prison

administrative appeal under § 1983 because “inmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to

a specific inmate grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galazau, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Therefore, the court grants defendants summary judgment as to plaintiff’s § 1983 claim

challenging the resolution of his case during the prison appeals process.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1 The findings and recommendations filed February 23, 2007, are adopted as to plaintiff’s

claim that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him a corneal transplant;

2. The June 23, 2006 motion for summary judgment filed by Drs. Mangis, Sandham, and

Rohlfing is granted as to: (1) plaintiff’s claim that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment

rights by denying him a corneal transplant; and (2) plaintiff’s claim that Drs. Mangis and

Sandham mishandled his prison administrative appeal;

3. The June 21, 2006, motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Dr. Steen is

granted as to plaintiff’s claim that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying

him a corneal transplant;

4. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment are denied as to plaintiff’s claim that

defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him Muracel 1%. 

5. Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment is denied.

DATED: March 28, 2007

/s/ David F. Levi 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00164-JAM-EFB Document 103 Filed 03/29/07 Page 3 of 3