Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01951/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01951-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH CAPOGRECO, et al.,

NO. CIV. S-00-1951 LKK/GGH P

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

R. SANDHAM, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief

pursuant to 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 September 2, 2005, the magistrate

judge recommended that the defendant’s motion for partial summary

judgement be granted. 

Non dispositive pre-trial motions referred to the magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) are reviewed under a

clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule 72-303(f); United States v. Raddatz, 447

Case 2:00-cv-01951-LKK -GGH Document 156 Filed 10/07/05 Page 1 of 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

1 The failure of a party to file objections does not relieve

the district court of its obligation to give de novo review of

conclusions of law. Barilla, 886 F.2d at 1518.

2

U.S. 667, 673 (1980). On the other hand, a magistrate judge's

determination concerning matters referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) are for the most part reviewed de novo. Thus, the

district court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed

findings of fact to which objection has been made, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business

Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455

U.S. 920 (1982), and the magistrate's conclusions of law. Barilla

v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Britt v. Simi

Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)).

The court may, however, assume the correctness of that portion of

the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made

and decide the motion on applicable law. See United States v.

Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Orand v. United

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979)).1

The court is not bound to adopt the magistrate judge's

findings and recommendations; on the contrary, the court must

exercise "sound judicial discretion" in making its own

determination on the record. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S.at

675-76. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in

part, the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations. 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d at 617.

////

Case 2:00-cv-01951-LKK -GGH Document 156 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 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

3

Although the court adopts in full the magistrate judge’s

summary of the procedural history of the case, as well as the legal

standard for Eighth Amendment claims and motions for summary

judgement, as I discuss below, the court declines to adopt the

magistrate judge’s recommendation as to defendants Parks and Lett.

A. DEFENDANT PARKS 

The magistrate judge recommended that summary judgement be

granted with respect to defendant Parks. The magistrate judge

concluded that plaintiff may have been subject to a slight delay

in receiving dental treatment, but the delay did not amount to

deliberate indifference. Findings and Recommendations (“F&Rs”)

filed on September 2, 2005 at 16. I cannot agree.

Plaintiff relies on his dental records to dispute the

seriousness of his dental condition and to demonstrate that

treatment was delayed. The record appears to support his

contentions. Plaintiff explains that a cavity was not filled at

the Mule Creek State Prison because he was pending transfer to the

High Dessert State Prison (“HDSP”). Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex.

1, at 278. When plaintiff arrived at HDSP, a year passed before

his cavity was filled. When his cavity was filled, plaintiff’s

dental record noted deep decay. Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 1,

at 275. Plaintiff avers that the delay in treatment caused the

condition of his cavity to worsen. 

Viewing the record in light most favorable to the plaintiff

and drawing all justifiable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor,

the court finds that the evidence relied upon by the plaintiff set

Case 2:00-cv-01951-LKK -GGH Document 156 Filed 10/07/05 Page 3 of 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

4

forth sufficient facts to establish a genuine issue for trial. 

Specifically, there is a question of fact as to whether the

delay in treatment amounts to deliberate indifference to a serious

medical (or dental) condition. The court notes that “[w]here

intent is a primary issue, summary judgment is generally

inappropriate.” S.E.C. v. Seaboard Corp., 677 F.2d 1297, 1298-1299

(9th Cir. 1982). Deliberate indifference is a state of mind and

is a factual question to be determined by a trier of fact. Factual

conclusions regarding a defendant’s state of mind are therefore not

suitable for summary judgement. Accordingly, summary judgment as

to defendant Parks must be DENIED.

B. DEFENDANT LETT

The magistrate judge recommended that summary judgment be

granted with respect to defendant Lett. The magistrate judge

concluded that defendant Lett’s actions did not constitute

deliberate indifference. Specifically, the magistrate judge agreed

with the defendants that the plaintiff never suffered any seizures

and that plaintiff’s prescription for Depakote was never

discontinued. F&Rs at 18-19. I cannot agree. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Lett acted with deliberate

indifference when he prescribed Depakote for plaintiff, and then,

once plaintiff complained about Lett’s treatment and filed

complaints against Lett, Lett refused to renew the prescription of

Depakote, causing the plaintiff to suffer three seizures. 

Plaintiff asserts that one of Depakote’s functions is to treat

seizure disorder. Plaintiff relies on several exhibits and his own

Case 2:00-cv-01951-LKK -GGH Document 156 Filed 10/07/05 Page 4 of 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

5

declaration, which establish a genuine issue of disputed fact as

to whether he suffered seizures and as to the treatment he

received.

First, plaintiff relies on his declaration, in which he states

that he suffered three seizures “as part of withdrawal problems

from the Depakote Dr. Lett refused to renew.” Pl.’s Opp’n, Dec.

of Kenneth Capogreco, Ex. A.

Second, there are several administrative records that reveal

instances in which plaintiff reported to psychiatric social workers

and doctors that he suffered from seizures. Def.’s Mot. for Summ.

J., Ex. 1, at 364, 367. In one interdisciplinary progress note,

dated November 1, 2000, it was noted that a Dr. Rhee had prescribed

Depakote on August 14, 2000 for “90 days for seizure.” Def.’s Mot.

for Summ. J., Ex. 1, at 363.

Third, plaintiff sets forth evidence of having a confrontation

with defendant Lett. In an appeal, log no. 00422, filed on

February 6, 2000, plaintiff asserts that he saw defendant Lett on

December 7, 1999 because he was having “adjustment and anger

management problems.” At this time, defendant Lett was hostile and

confrontational, seeking to “elicit a verbal and/or physical

response” from plaintiff and refusing to discuss plaintiff’s

medication dosage with him. Lett also stated that if plaintiff did

not like it, he should “sue the governor.” Def.’s Mot. for Summ.

J., Ex. 2. Then, in a subsequent appeal, log no. 00-0006677,

plaintiff states that defendant Lett, in retaliation for plaintiff

filing a complaint as to Lett’s alleged misconducts, had refused

Case 2:00-cv-01951-LKK -GGH Document 156 Filed 10/07/05 Page 5 of 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

6

to renew plaintiff’s prescription for Depakote. Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex.

C. 

Fourth, plaintiff submitted a health care request form, dated

February 8, 2000, wherein he checked seizures as one of the

conditions for which he sought treatment. Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. C (Misstamped by HDSP as received in the year 1999, rather than

2000). 

Fifth, plaintiff was designated not eligible for food handling

because of a “seizure” condition. Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex.

1 at 244.

The magistrate judge determined that the very few references

to seizure in the plaintiff’s medical files “do not substantiate

that plaintiff actually suffered any [seizures].” F&Rs at 22. The

mere fact that there are few mentions of seizures in plaintiff’s

medical records is not dispositive of whether plaintiff did in fact

suffer from seizures. Because plaintiff has tendered evidence

suggesting that he suffered from seizures, summary judgment must

be denied as to this issue.

Similarly, the magistrate judge treats as conclusive the fact

that there were no medical records indicating that Depakote was

discontinued. The court cannot agree. Plaintiff set forth clear

facts that dispute whether the medication was discontinued. For

these reasons, it is apparent to the court that there exist genuine

issues of material fact as to whether defendant Lett demonstrated

deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s health by discontinuing

plaintiff’s medication. 

Case 2:00-cv-01951-LKK -GGH Document 156 Filed 10/07/05 Page 6 of 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

7

As the court noted with respect to defendant Parks, “[w]here

intent is a primary issue, summary judgment is generally

inappropriate.” S.E.C. v. Seaboard Corp., 677 F.2d 1297, 1298-1299

(9th Cir. 1982). In the case at bar, the question of whether

defendant Lett had a state of mind that constituted deliberate

indifference is a question to be determined by a fact finder. The

existence of these disputed facts preclude summary judgement.

Summary judgement as to defendant Lett also must be DENIED.

C. DEFENDANTS SANDHAM AND GILKES

The magistrate judge recommended that summary judgement be

granted with respect to defendants Sandham and Gilkes. The

magistrate judge determined that the facts did not support

plaintiff’s contention that a delay in receiving certain orthotics

constituted deliberate indifference. While the court agrees with

the recommendation to grant summary judgement, the court declines

to adopt the reasoning of the magistrate judge. The court finds

that the reason for granting summary judgement with respect to

defendants Sandham and Gilkes is not because the facts demonstrate

a lack of deliberate indifference, but because the plaintiff did

not tender any evidence of specific facts in the form of

affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material, Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(e); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S.

574, 586 (1986).

For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s findings

and recommendations, summary judgment as to defendants Sandham and

Gilkes will be GRANTED.

Case 2:00-cv-01951-LKK -GGH Document 156 Filed 10/07/05 Page 7 of 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

8

For all the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ORDERS as

follows:

1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to

defendants Parks and Lett;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to

defendants Sandham and Gilkes; and

3. The case is remanded to the magistrate judge for further

proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 5, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:00-cv-01951-LKK -GGH Document 156 Filed 10/07/05 Page 8 of 8