Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00440/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00440-5/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Glenn C. Worley, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Correctional Medical Services, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 12-0440-PHX-RCB 

 O R D E R 

 Plaintiff Glenn Cornell Worley, an inmate confined by the Arizona Department of 

Corrections (ADC), filed this pro se civil rights action. (Doc. 8.) Defendant Fredrickson 

moved for summary judgment, and the Court granted the motion. (Doc. 34.) Plaintiff 

now moves to Alter or Amend the Judgment. (Doc. 36.) 

 The Court will deny the motion. 

I. Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment 

 A. Background 

Plaintiff’s sole claim was for violation of his Eighth Amendment right to dental 

care when Defendant, Dr. Fredrickson, D.D.S., refused to perform a root canal on 

Plaintiff, insisting instead that Defendant extract the tooth. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff claimed 

that as a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff developed a cyst that burst and then 

spread an infection to his tongue and inner cheek. Another dentist provided Plaintiff with 

a root canal several months later. (Id.) 

Case 2:12-cv-00440-RCB Document 38 Filed 10/21/13 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

 The Court granted summary judgment to Defendant, finding that Plaintiff failed to 

create a triable issue of fact as to deliberate indifference for refusing to perform a root 

canal on tooth #19 or to provide antibiotics. (Doc. 34 at 4.) The Court also found that 

Plaintiff failed to provide admissible evidence that he had a ruptured cyst that was caused 

by infection in tooth #19. (Id.) 

 The Court found that it was undisputed that Defendant saw Plaintiff for dental care 

several times and determined that tooth #19 could not be filled and needed to be 

extracted. (Doc. 34 at 5-6.) Plaintiff refused the extraction several times and alleged that 

on May 5, 2011, he asked Defendant about having a root canal through outside treatment 

and that Defendant then asked him how long he would be here. Plaintiff further alleged 

that when he said he has a life sentence, Defendant said that no outside care was 

available. (Id. at 6.) 

 The Court observed that it is well-settled that a difference of medical opinion is 

insufficient to establish deliberate indifference, and to prevail on a claim involving 

choices between alternative courses of treatment, a prisoner must show that the course of 

treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable in light of the circumstances and 

that it was chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health. (Id. at 

7, citing Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 

F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996)). Plaintiff offered no admissible expert evidence that the 

treatment option offered by Defendant was medically unacceptable under the 

circumstances. 

 Likewise, Plaintiff offered no admissible evidence that Defendant was deliberately 

indifferent for failing to prescribe an antibiotic to treat the tooth; Defendant attested that 

an antibiotic is not indicated for a chronic, low-grade infection; rather, antibiotics are for 

acute infections that are intended to be resolved by extraction or root canal treatment 

within 10 days and that there are other considerations when a patient is HIV+ as is 

Plaintiff. In addition, there was no evidence that the infected tooth caused a cyst or 

spread of infection. (Id. at 7-8.) 

Case 2:12-cv-00440-RCB Document 38 Filed 10/21/13 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

 B. Discussion 

“There are four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: (1) the 

motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is 

based; (2) the moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable 

evidence; (3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) there is an 

intervening change in controlling law.” Turner v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe. R. Co., 

338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or 

more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; 

(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered 

before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) voiding of the judgment; 

(5) satisfaction of the judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b); School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th 

Cir. 1993). Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the grounds justifying relief are 

extraordinary; mere dissatisfaction with the court=s order or belief that the court is wrong 

in its decision are not adequate grounds for relief. See Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. 

v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). 

 In his Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, Plaintiff argues that the Court should 

view evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and that he believes 

favorable review was not considered. (Doc. 36 at 1.) He does not specify what evidence 

he believes was not so viewed, but the Court specifically noted in its decision that “even 

if Defendant stated that no outside care was available after Plaintiff disclosed his life 

sentence, this is insufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to deliberately indifferent 

treatment.” (Doc. 34 at 6.) Plaintiff offered no medical evidence that the care he 

received was unacceptable under the circumstances. Plaintiff also asks for an opportunity 

to testify and time to obtain a declaration from a “possible witness.” (Doc. 36 at 2.) Not 

only is his offer vague, Plaintiff was specifically advised in writing of the evidentiary 

Case 2:12-cv-00440-RCB Document 38 Filed 10/21/13 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

requirements of a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and failed to provide 

the necessary evidence. (Doc. 24.) 

 The Court finds that Plaintiff offers nothing to justify altering or amending the 

judgment. 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment 

(Doc. 36) is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to accept no further filings in this 

case except in connection with an appeal. 

 DATED this 21st day of October, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-00440-RCB Document 38 Filed 10/21/13 Page 4 of 4