Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01015/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01015-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 No. C 13-1015 RS (PR)

ORDER GRANTING DEFS.’ MOT. FOR SUMM. J.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 4/13/15*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

KEVIN EARL HOLMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN HOSTINO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 13-1015 RS (PR)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Holmes, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this federal civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 1983 in which he alleges that San Quentin staff provided

constitutionally inadequate medical care. Defendants move for summary judgment (Docket

No. 31), and have provided plaintiff with the required warnings under Rand v. Rowland, 154

F.3d 952, 962–63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. For the

reasons stated herein, defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to all claims against all

defendants.

 

Case 3:13-cv-01015-RS Document 41 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 No. C 13-1015 RS (PR)

ORDER GRANTING DEFS.’ MOT. FOR SUMM. J.

2

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits

demonstrate that there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those

which may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,

248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a

reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. 

The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those

portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence of a

genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Where

the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, it must affirmatively

demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party. In

contrast, on an issue for which the opposing party will have the burden of proof at trial, the

moving party need only point out “that there is an absence of evidence to support the

nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325. 

Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond

the pleadings and, by its own affidavits or discovery, set forth specific facts showing that

there is a genuine issue for trial. The court is only concerned with disputes over material

facts. “[F]actual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Anderson,

477 U.S. at 248. It is not the task of the court to scour the record in search of a genuine issue

of triable fact. Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). The nonmoving party

has the burden of identifying, with reasonable particularity, the evidence that precludes

summary judgment. Id. If the nonmoving party fails to make this showing, “the moving

party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.

Case 3:13-cv-01015-RS Document 41 Filed 04/13/15 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 No. C 13-1015 RS (PR)

ORDER GRANTING DEFS.’ MOT. FOR SUMM. J.

3

II. Claims

Plaintiff alleges that (1) on March 17, 2012, San Quentin nurse J. Jimenez was

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when she delayed administering his pain

medication by two hours; (2) M. Mutha, a nurse, was deliberately indifferent by refusing to

take responsibility for the delay in receiving his medication; and (3) Dr. C. David delayed

plaintiff’s hip surgery, an act of deliberate indifference. The motion for summary judgment

is unopposed. A district court may not grant a motion for summary judgment solely because

the opposing party has failed to file an opposition. Cristobal v. Siegel, 26 F.3d 1488,

1494–95 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1994) (unopposed motion may be granted only after court

determines that there are no material issues of fact). The Court may, however, grant an

unopposed motion for summary judgment if the movant’s papers are themselves sufficient to

support the motion and do not on their face reveal a genuine issue of material fact. See

United States v. Real Property at Incline Village, 47 F.3d 1511, 1520 (9th Cir. 1995) (local

rule cannot mandate automatic entry of judgment for moving party without consideration of

whether motion and supporting papers satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 56), rev’d on other grounds sub

nom. Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820 (1996); Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d

943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993) (same).

The papers in support of the motion for summary judgment are evidence that the

defendants provided and did not impede the provision of constitutionally adequate medical

care to plaintiff. More specifically, the evidence shows that defendants were aware of

plaintiff’s medical needs and adequately addressed them with medical care acceptable under

the circumstances. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Toguchi v. Chung,

391 F.3d 1051, 1058–60 (9th Cir. 2004). On March 17, 2012, the day Jimenez allegedly

failed to administer timely plaintiff’s medications, he received pain medications in the

morning, afternoon, and evening. The delay before he received his evening medications

amounts to negligence, or gross negligence, neither of which is actionable under section

Case 3:13-cv-01015-RS Document 41 Filed 04/13/15 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 No. C 13-1015 RS (PR)

ORDER GRANTING DEFS.’ MOT. FOR SUMM. J.

4

1983. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835-36 & n.4. Because Jimenez’s alleged actions were at worst

gross negligence, his Eighth Amendment claim against Mutha is without merit. 

Regarding Dr. David’s actions, between his first evaluation of plaintiff in December

2010 through his total hip replacement surgery in February 2012, he diagnosed and treated

plaintiff’s medical conditions and prescribed pain medication. His hip surgery, was delayed

for sound medical reasons. The first delay occurred because preoperative tests showed that

plaintiff had a collapsed lung, which had to be treated before surgery could proceed. The

second delay occurred because plaintiff was coughing up blood, which necessitated further

diagnostic testing. Once these conditions had been treated and a pulmonologist approved

plaintiff for surgery, Dr. David submitted the paperwork for plaintiff to receive surgery. 

In sum, the movants’ papers are sufficient to support the motion and do not on their

face reveal a genuine issue of material fact. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary

judgment is GRANTED in favor of all defendants.

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of all defendants as

to all claims. The claims against Mary, a San Quentin nurse, are DISMISSED because

service was never effected. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants J.

Jimenez, M. Mutha, and C. David as to all claims, terminate Docket No. 31, and close the

file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 13, 2015 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-01015-RS Document 41 Filed 04/13/15 Page 4 of 4