Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01397/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01397-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:14-cv-01397-BEN (PCL)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID ROBERT BELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:14-cv-01397-BEN (PCL)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION; AND

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

[Docket Nos. 80, 95]

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff David Robert Bell initiated this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging 

violations of his civil rights related to his medical care while incarcerated. Following an 

earlier Motion for Summary Judgment, only Plaintiff’s first, second, and fourth claims 

remain. (Docket Nos. 83, 87.) On February 22, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion for 

Summary Judgment claiming qualified immunity on the remaining claims. (Docket No. 

80.) Plaintiff filed an Opposition, and Defendant filed a Reply. (Docket Nos. 82, 84.)

Case 3:14-cv-01397-BEN-PCL Document 102 Filed 09/06/16 Page 1 of 7
2

3:14-cv-01397-BEN (PCL)

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

On July 27, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a thorough and thoughtful Report 

and Recommendation, recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ Motion. (Docket 

No. 95.) The Report and Recommendation concluded that Defendants were entitled to 

qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s remaining claims. Plaintiff subsequently filed 

Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 97), to which Defendants 

replied (Docket No. 98). 

Where a timely objection to a report and recommendation has been filed, the 

district court reviews de novo those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or 

recommendations to which an objection was filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court 

has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s Objections, 

Defendants’ Reply, and the remainder of the record in this matter and ADOPTS the 

Report and Recommendation in full.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the non-moving party, “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). The 

moving party must identify the pleadings, depositions, affidavits, or other evidence that it 

“believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. 

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). A “material” fact is one that is relevant to an element 

of a claim or defense and whose existence might affect the outcome of the suit. See 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material 

fact is genuine if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the 

non-moving party.” Id. If the movant initially shows that no genuine issue exists for 

trial, the non-movant cannot then rest on the pleadings but must respond with evidence 

setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Darulis v. 

Clark, No. 08-cv-2344 DMS (RBB), 2010 WL 962938, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2010).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:14-cv-01397-BEN-PCL Document 102 Filed 09/06/16 Page 2 of 7
3

3:14-cv-01397-BEN (PCL)

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

III. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability 

for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 

constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. 

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (internal citation omitted). A qualified immunity 

analysis begins with the threshold question: Based on the facts taken in the light most 

favorable to the party asserting the injury, did the defendant’s conduct violate a 

constitutional right? Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). If no constitutional 

violation has occurred, the court need not inquire further. Id. However, if the plaintiff 

has satisfied the first step, the court must decide whether the right at issue was “clearly 

established” at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct. Id.1 

The relevant inquiry in this case is whether Plaintiff has shown facts that make out 

a violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. 

To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, an inmate must show “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” 

Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). In the Ninth Circuit, the test for 

deliberate indifference has two parts: 

First, the plaintiff must show a “serious medical need” by demonstrating that 

“failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury 

or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’” Second, the plaintiff must 

show the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent. This 

second prong—defendant’s response to the need was deliberately 

indifferent—is satisfied by showing (a) a purposeful act or failure to respond 

to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the 

indifference. Indifference “may appear when prison officials deny, delay or 

intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown by the way 

 

1 Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), removed the mandate of Saucier and judges 

are now “permitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs 

of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances 

in the particular case at hand.” 555 U.S. at 236. Because the Report and 

Recommendation chose to follow the traditional Saucier analysis, this Court does as well.

Case 3:14-cv-01397-BEN-PCL Document 102 Filed 09/06/16 Page 3 of 7
4

3:14-cv-01397-BEN (PCL)

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

in which prison physicians provide medical care.” Yet, an “inadvertent [or 

negligent] failure to provide adequate medical care” alone does not state a 

claim under § 1983.

Id. (internal citations omitted). 

IV. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff generally asserts that the facts supporting the Report and 

Recommendation demonstrate that Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment. In 

support of this assertion, Plaintiff contends that he complained of debilitating back pain 

for eight months beginning in January 2012 before corrective action was taken in August 

2012. (Obj. at 2, 5-6, 8, & 11.) He argues that this eight-month delay caused substantial 

harm rising to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. (Obj. at 6, 13.) Plaintiff

contends that “[t]here is a question of material fact of whether Defendants’ denial of 

proper treatment shows knowing disregard of Plaintiff’s serious medical condition.” 

(Obj. at 14.)

The evidence belies Plaintiff’s assertion that his medical condition was ignored for 

eight months. Rather, the medical records demonstrate that Plaintiff began reporting his 

pain in May 2012, which culminated in surgery to treat his paraspinal abscess on August 

4, 2012. Therefore, his complaints and treatment lasted approximately three months, not 

eight. Plaintiff’s assertion that he began complaining of back pain in January 2012 is not 

supported by the medical records.2

As explained more fully in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s treatment 

during this three-month period does not demonstrate deliberate indifference to his 

medical condition. Plaintiff visited the medical staff several times and received treatment 

 

2 The Court notes that the medical records indicate that Plaintiff has suffered from back 

pain over the years, but there are no medical records from January to April 2012, the 

period in which Plaintiff asserts Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his 

medical needs. The relevant medical records begin in May 2012. 

Case 3:14-cv-01397-BEN-PCL Document 102 Filed 09/06/16 Page 4 of 7
5

3:14-cv-01397-BEN (PCL)

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

in response to those visits. The medical records demonstrate that the “course of treatment 

. . . was both attentive to Plaintiff’s pain and reasonable under the circumstances.” 

(Report and Recommendation at 11.) 

That it took three months from when Plaintiff first reported his pain until the 

corrective surgery does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Rather, the delay, 

if any, was due to misdiagnosis. But Defendants did not fail to treat Plaintiff according to 

their diagnosis, and there is no evidence that Defendants knew of and disregarded 

Plaintiff’s actual ailment. See Garcia v. Katukota, 362 Fed. App’x 622, 622-23 (9th Cir. 

2010) (“[E]vidence of medical misdiagnosis and of a difference of medical opinion are 

insufficient to show deliberate indifference.” (citing cases)). As noted in the Report and 

Recommendation, the missed diagnosis appears partly due to Plaintiff’s inconsistent 

communications about his pain. At times, he stated that the pain arose from a fall, but at 

other times he denied trauma or injury. Sometimes, when examined, Plaintiff did not 

grimace and was able to ambulate despite reporting extreme pain. The records also note 

that he was uncooperative, hostile, and threatening at times. Further, Plaintiff’s medical 

history as a drug seeker and drug abuser could have permitted medical staff to attribute 

Plaintiff’s behavior to an addict seeking narcotics.

As to Plaintiff’s possible drug-seeking behavior, Plaintiff objects that “Defendants’ 

defense that Plaintiff was ‘drug-seeking’ is no defense at all.” (Obj. at 5.) Plaintiff 

argues that there is no evidence that his complaints were motivated by an improper desire 

for drugs and, therefore, Defendants could not reasonably believe Plaintiff was drugseeking and delay proper treatment of him. (Obj. at 4-5, 11-12.) 

The Court again disagrees with Plaintiff. The Report and Recommendation did not 

premise its conclusion on Defendants’ “drug-seeking defense.” Rather, the Report and 

Recommendation considered the entire medical record and found that Plaintiff failed to 

show that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference. As explained above, those 

records indicate that medical staff provided Plaintiff with timely treatment throughout the 

Case 3:14-cv-01397-BEN-PCL Document 102 Filed 09/06/16 Page 5 of 7
6

3:14-cv-01397-BEN (PCL)

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

period in which he complained of pain. At times, Defendants’ course of treatment 

appeared to be working because Plaintiff reported reduced pain. 

Furthermore, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, there is evidence that Plaintiff sought 

drugs. On May 18, 2012, FNP Velardi noted that Plaintiff had “pinpoint” pupils and 

ordered a drug screen. (Mot. Ex. 8.) The drug screen results showed that Plaintiff tested 

positive for morphine although he did not have a morphine prescription. (Mot. Ex. 9.) 

On June 7, 2012, despite being able to move from sitting to standing without assistance 

and having a steady gait, Plaintiff told the medical staff, “I need something stronger to 

make this better. The medicines I’m on are not working!” (Mot. Ex. 13.) At that 

appointment, Plaintiff was uncooperative and threatened the nurse, asking “What’s your 

name because I’m documenting all of this!” (Id.) On June 28, 2012, Plaintiff admitted to 

Dr. Sedighi that he purchased morphine on the prison yard. (Mot. Ex. 19.) In spite of 

these indications that Plaintiff may have been exaggerating his pain to obtain narcotics, 

medical staff evaluated and treated Plaintiff in a timely manner consistent with his 

diagnosis.

In sum, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, there are no 

genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights 

under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff cannot make out a constitutional violation at the 

first step of the analysis, and therefore Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED

in its entirety. (Docket No. 95.) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is 

GRANTED. (Docket No. 80.) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the 

remaining claims in this case. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:14-cv-01397-BEN-PCL Document 102 Filed 09/06/16 Page 6 of 7
7

3:14-cv-01397-BEN (PCL)

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 Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on all 

remaining claims and close the case.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2016

 

3 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, the Court finds there is no just reason to 

delay the entry of judgment on the claims between Plaintiff and Defendants.

Case 3:14-cv-01397-BEN-PCL Document 102 Filed 09/06/16 Page 7 of 7