Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05453/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05453-16/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

Defendants Kramer and Howard were dismissed from the action on April 11, 2006,for Plaintiff’s failure to 1

state a claim against them. (Court Docs. 25, 102). Defendants Bird, Sydenstricker and Witwer were dismissed via

summary judgment on May 30, 2006. (Court Docs. 103, 106.) Findings and Recommendations to dismiss

Defendants Cammiso (voluntary dismissal by Plaintiff) and Daly (failure to effect service) were issued on June 2,

2006. (Doc. 108) The District Court has not yet issued an Order regarding these Findings and Recommendations.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOHAMMED ABDALLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

KRAMER, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 5453 AWI SMS P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT (Doc. 119 ) 

 Mohammed Abdalla (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

A. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action is proceeding on the First Amended Complaint filed on June 17, 2002, against

Defendant Rexin only. On December 4, 2006, Defendant Rexin filed a Motion for Summary 1

Judgment. (Doc. 119.) Plaintiff filed an Opposition on January 19, 2007. (Doc. 126.)

B. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists no genuine

issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Under summary judgment practice, the moving party 

always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court

of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of "the

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 127 Filed 01/31/07 Page 1 of 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

2

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions

on file, together with the affidavits, if any," which it believes

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the

burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a Summary Judgment Motion may properly be

made in reliance solely on the 'pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions

on file.'" Id. Indeed, summary judgment should be entered, after adequate time for discovery and

upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of

an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at

trial. Id. at 322. "[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the

nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Id. In such a

circumstance, summary judgment should be granted, "so long as whatever is before the district

court demonstrates that the standard for entry of summary judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is

satisfied." Id. at 323.

If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing

party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. Matsushita Elec.

Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).

In attempting to establish the existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party may not

rely upon the denials of its pleadings, but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the

form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the

dispute exists. Rule 56(e); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11. The opposing party must

demonstrate that the fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the

suit under the governing law, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); T.W.

Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987), and that

the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for

the nonmoving party, Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 1436 (9th Cir. 1987).

In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not

establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that "the claimed factual

dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 127 Filed 01/31/07 Page 2 of 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

Although Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant Rexin’s Motion for Summary Judgment, he did not 2

admit or deny the facts set forth by Defendants as undisputed nor die he file a separate statement of disputed facts. 

Local Rule 56-260(b). Therefore, the Court compiled the statement of undisputed facts from Defendant’s statement

of undisputed facts and Plaintiff’s verified Amended Complaint and Opposition. Johnson v. Meltzer, 134 F.3d 1393,

1399-1400 (9th Cir. 1998) (verified complaints and oppositions constitute opposing affidavits for purposes of the

summary judgment rule if they are based on facts within the pleader’s personal knowledge). Because Plaintiff

neither submitted his own statement of disputed facts nor addressed Defendants’ statement of undisputed facts, the

Court accepts Defendants’ version of the facts where Plaintiff’s verified Amended Complaint and Opposition are not

contradictory. Accordingly, these facts are undisputed solely for the purpose of the instant Motion for Summary

Judgment.

3

trial." T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631. Thus, the "purpose of summary judgment is to 'pierce

the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.'" 

Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) advisory committee's note on 1963

amendments).

In resolving the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court examines the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if

any. Rule 56(c). The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, Anderson, 477 U.S. at

255, and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must

be drawn in favor of the opposing party, Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citing United States v.

Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962)(per curiam). Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out

of the air, and it is the opposing party's obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the

inference may be drawn. Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D.

Cal. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Finally, to demonstrate a genuine issue, the opposing party "must do more than simply

show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Where the record taken as a

whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no 'genuine

issue for trial.'" Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citation omitted).

C. UNDISPUTED FACTS2

1. On November 15, 2000, while working at the Prison Industry Authority (“PIA”), at

California Department of Corrections (“CDC”), Sierra Conservation Center, Plaintiff

injured himself while lifting a box of clothing. 

2. Defendant Rexin was employed at Sierra Conservation Center as a physician and

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 127 Filed 01/31/07 Page 3 of 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 This summary includes only those allegations made in the Amended Complaint against this Defendant. 3

4

surgeon from March 1997, through December 1998. 

3. Defendant Rexin was not employed by CDC or working at Sierra Conservation

Center on November 15, 2000. 

D. ANALYSIS

1. Summary of Complaint3

With respect to the allegations against Defendant Rexin, Plaintiff alleges in the Amended

Complaint that he first injured his back in 1997. At that time, Defendant Rexin provided

Plaintiff with pain medication and an x-ray of his back taken on September 10, 1997, did not

reveal the cause of Plaintiff’s pain. Plaintiff states that over the next three years he continued to

experience pain and that he made several requests to Defendant Dr. Rexin for some form of relief

but his requests fell on “deaf ears.” 

2. Eighth Amendment Medical Claim

A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care does not constitute cruel and unusual

punishment unless the mistreatment rises to the level of “deliberate indifference to serious

medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The “deliberate indifference”

standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. First, the alleged deprivation must be, in

objective terms, “sufficiently serious.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (citing

Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, the prison official must act with a

“sufficiently culpable state of mind,” which entails more than mere negligence, but less than

conduct undertaken for the very purpose of causing harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 837. 

A prison official does not act in a deliberately indifferent manner unless the official “knows of

and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. 

In applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that a

prisoner’s civil rights have been abridged, “the indifference to his medical needs must be

substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this

cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980), citing

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 127 Filed 01/31/07 Page 4 of 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

5

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. “[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or

treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the

Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely

because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 106; see also Anderson v.

County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1050

(9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir.

1990). 

Delays in providing medical care may manifest deliberate indifference. Estelle, 429 U.S.

at 104-05. To establish a claim of deliberate indifference arising from delay, a plaintiff must

show that the delay was harmful. See Berry v. Bunnell, 39 F.3d 1056, 1057 (9th Cir.1994) (per

curiam); McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059; Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th

Cir.1990); Hunt v. Dental Dep't, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir.1989); Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of

State Prison Comm'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam). Moreover, mere

differences of opinion between a prisoner and prison medical staff as to proper medical care do

not give rise to a § 1983 claim. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996);

Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir.1989); Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1334 (9th

Cir.1981).

In this case, the Court finds that Defendant Rexin has failed to meet his burden in

establishing that no disputed issue of fact exists warranting trial. As evidence in support of his

Motion, Defendant Rexin cites solely to Findings and Recommendations concerning a Motion

for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Sydenstricker, Witwer and Bird. (Doc. 103.) 

Defendant states that in those Findings this Court established that the sole basis of Plaintiff’s

claims in the Amended Complaint concerned the injury he sustained on November 15, 2000, and

while employed at the PIA at Sierra Conservation Center. It is unclear to the Court, however,

how Defendant Rexin believes he can rely on findings made by the Court on a Motion that was

not filed by him, was filed before he himself filed a responsive pleading in the case and most

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 127 Filed 01/31/07 Page 5 of 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

6

importantly, that concerned entirely separate claims and defendants in the action. The operative

pleading in this action is the Amended Complaint. (Doc. 5.) In the Amended Complaint,

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Rexin violated his rights in 1997, when Defendant Rexin

examined him. (Am. Compl. at 11.) Thus, Defendant’s reliance on this Courts findings

regarding events that occurred in November 2000, and thereafter, do not establish the absence of

a genuine issue of material fact as to the allegation that Defendant Rexin violated Plaintiff’s

rights in 1997. As such, Defendant Rexin has failed to meet his burden on summary judgment.

E. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant

Rexin be DENIED. The Court also recommends that the Defendant be permitted to file a Second

Motion for Summary Judgment addressing the allegations actually made in the Amended

Complaint within thirty (30) days of the resolution of these Findings by the District Court. 

The Court further ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted to

the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with

a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with the

Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 127 Filed 01/31/07 Page 6 of 6