Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02665/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02665-7/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

MICHAEL WOODS,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. SWIFT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 14-cv-2665 JAM KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 11, 2016, defendant filed a summary judgment motion. (ECF 

No. 47.) On April 25, 2016, the undersigned granted plaintiff’s motion to file an amended 

complaint. (ECF No. 50.) The April 25, 2016 order vacated defendant’s summary judgment 

motion, and granted defendant twenty-one days to file a response to the amended complaint and 

to inform the court whether she seeks reinstatement of the vacated summary judgment motion. 

(Id.)

On May 13, 2016, defendant filed an answer to the amended complaint (ECF No. 51) and 

a motion to reinstate her summary judgment motion (ECF No. 52.)

Good cause appearing, defendant’s motion to reinstate her summary judgment motion is 

granted. For the reasons stated herein, both parties are directed to file further briefing. 

////

////

Case 2:14-cv-02665-JAM-KJN Document 53 Filed 06/03/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Plaintiff’s Claims

This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended complaint filed November 10, 2015,

against defendant Swift. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Swift, a nurse, provided 

inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Plaintiff alleges that on February 21, 2014, he injured his left ring finger while playing 

basketball. (Id. at 13 (emphasis added).) Plaintiff alleges that he hyperextended his finger. (Id.) 

Plaintiff alleges that on February 24, 2014, defendant Swift examined his left ring finger and told 

him that there was nothing wrong with his hand. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Swift denied his 

request to see a doctor. (Id. at 13-14.)

Plaintiff alleges that on April 9, 2014, he had another triage with defendant Swift 

regarding an injury to his lower leg area. (Id. at 15.) During this examination, defendant Swift

said, “Another basketball injury. I’m charging you $5.” (Id.) Plaintiff told defendant Swift that 

he had not yet seen a doctor for his injured finger. (Id.) Defendant Swift replied, “You are not

going to see a doctor for your leg.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff alleges that on April 17, 2014, he saw Dr. Hamkar for a chronic care follow-up 

visit. (Id.) The purpose of this visit was not an evaluation of plaintiff’s injured finger. (Id.) 

However, Dr. Hamkar evaluated plaintiff’s left ring finger, noting that plaintiff was unable to 

fully flex the finger. (Id.) Dr. Hamkar further noted “some mild swelling at the proximal 

interphalangeal joint.” (Id.) Dr. Hamker ordered an x-ray after concluding that plaintiff had a 

possible rupture of his flexor tendons at the proximal interphalangeal and the distal 

interphalangeal joints. (Id.) Dr. Hamkar also found that because plaintiff was left handed, he 

would refer him to hand surgery for evaluation and treatment. (Id.) 

Plaintiff alleges that on April 20, 2014, Dr. Hamkar’s request to refer plaintiff for 

evaluation by an orthopedic specialist was approved. (Id.) On June 30, 2014, plaintiff was 

evaluated by Dr. Ibrahim, an orthopedic surgeon. (Id. at 16.) Dr. Ibrahim told plaintiff that the 

only option was to fuse the finger joint using a screw to give him more function. (Id.) Dr. 

Ibrahim told plaintiff that he could not locate and reattach the torn tendon, given the amount of 

time between the injury and his surgical evaluation. (Id.)

Case 2:14-cv-02665-JAM-KJN Document 53 Filed 06/03/16 Page 2 of 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

3

Plaintiff alleges that on July 11, 2014, he had surgery on his left ring finger. (Id.) 

Plaintiff alleges that he has permanent nerve damage in his left ring finger and requires the use of 

a finger sleeve. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he has permanently lost the full range of motion in his 

left ring finger. (Id.) 

Discussion

In the summary judgment motion, defendant argues that plaintiff did not complain about 

his left ring finger on February 24, 2014. Defendant presents a medical record demonstrating that 

she treated plaintiff for an injury to his right ring finger on February 24, 2014. Defendant argues 

that she did not act with deliberate indifference on February 24, 2014 because she was unaware of 

the injury to plaintiff’s left ring finger. 

In his opposition, plaintiff argues that defendant lied about which ring finger she treated 

on February 24, 2014. However, he also attaches a grievance he signed on April 16, 2014 in 

which he wrote that on March 18, 2014, defendant Swift examined him for an injury to his left 

ring finger and failed to schedule him to see a doctor. (ECF No. 48 at 10 (emphasis added).) 

Plaintiff also attaches a chronic-care follow-up visit/progress note dated April 17, 2014. (Id. at 

14.) This report, signed by Dr. Hamkar, states that he examined plaintiff for his chronic care 

issues and injury to his left ring finger. (Id.) Dr. Hamkar wrote that plaintiff injured his left 

finger about “one month ago.” (Id.) Plaintiff’s April 16, 2014 grievance and Dr. Hamkar’s notes 

suggest that plaintiff injured his left finger in March 2014, and not on February 21, 2014, as 

alleged.

Erring on the side of caution, both parties are directed to file further briefing addressing 

whether defendant Swift examined an injury to plaintiff’s left ring finger any time between 

February 24, 2014, and April 16, 2014. If such records exist, the parties shall include those 

records in their further briefing. If such records do exist, the parties shall also address whether 

defendant Swift’s treatment of plaintiff’s injury to his left ring finger constituted deliberate 

indifference. 

////

////

Case 2:14-cv-02665-JAM-KJN Document 53 Filed 06/03/16 Page 3 of 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

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion to reinstate her motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 52) is 

granted;

2. The parties shall both file the further briefing described above within thirty days of the 

date of this order.

Dated: June 3, 2016

Wo2665.fb

Case 2:14-cv-02665-JAM-KJN Document 53 Filed 06/03/16 Page 4 of 4