Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00644/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00644-21/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

 Two defendants have been dismissed from this action. See Order, filed on May 16, 1

2006. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUY T. STRINGHAM,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0644 FCD GGH P

vs.

J. BICK, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Introduction

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s March 26, 2007, motion for appointment of expert

witnesses. 

Amended Complaint

The court has previously set forth plaintiff’s lengthy allegations and restates them

herein. Findings and Recommendations, filed on January 8, 2007, pp. 1-5, adopted by Order,

filed on March 15, 2007. Plaintiff is proceeding against ten defendants in an amended

1

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-00644-FCD-GGH Document 79 Filed 03/24/08 Page 1 of 8
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

 The original complaint was filed on April 4, 2005. 2

 Plaintiff proceeds against the entity defendants solely on his claims pursuant to the 3

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). See Order, filed on March 15, 2006, n. 1.

 Only the court’s electronic pagination is referenced. 4

 Allegations with respect to N. Grannis and M. Cry will not be referenced further, as

5

these parties have been dismissed from this action.

2

complaint (AC), filed on September 16, 2005. The defendants are the California Department of 2

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR); California Medical Facility-Vacaville (CMF); J. Bick; 3

T. Donahue; R. Andreason; N. Khoury; J. Thomas; S. Murray; S. Moreno; T. Schwartz.

Plaintiff contends that he was issued one CDC 128-C medical chrono for cell

housing with window tint on October 16, 2000, settling a grievance filing by plaintiff. 

Thereafter, the cell housing and window tint matters were divided into separate chronos; medical

chronos, pursuant to CMF policy are valid for one year and thus must be renewed annually. 

Plaintiff filed two separate grievances when the medical chronos were not renewed. AC, p. 7. 

4

On May 16, 2001, after plaintiff had been moved to a cell where he was allowed

to use window tint, staff ordered that he uncover his cell windows contrary to his medical

chrono. AC, p. 8. On January 30, 2004, following dismissal of a prior action on the same matter

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Case No. Civ-S-01-1211 WBS DAD P, plaintiff

filed a grievance with respect to cell housing reviewed by defendant CMF Senior Medical

Technical Assistant (MTA) T. Donahue, and denied by defendant CMF-V Chief Medical Officer

(CMO) J. Bick. At the second level, plaintiff’s grievance was reviewed by defendant R.

Andreason, also, apparently, CMO at CMF, according to plaintiff, and denied by defendant N.

Khoury, Chief Deputy of Clinical Services. AC, p. 9. At the third level, N. Grannis did not

review the appeal “due a time constraint pretense.”5

After the grievance processes within CDCR and the Board of Control were

complete, defendant Correctional Sergeant S. Murray moved plaintiff to a dormitory bed on

Case 2:05-cv-00644-FCD-GGH Document 79 Filed 03/24/08 Page 2 of 8
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

3

December 17, 2004, placing plaintiff in view of large exterior windows and exposing him to

large fluorescent lights from 5:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. This exposure caused plaintiff to suffer

several migraine headaches until he was moved to a different dorm bed on January 27, 2005. 

AC, p. 10. 

Plaintiff’s new location, where he remained at the time of the filing of his

amended complaint, placed him directly before the middle of a large exterior window, causing

him numerous migraine headaches. AC, pp. 10-11. 

Plaintiff’s neurologist, Dr. Cappazoli, not a defendant, had prescribed

Zolmitriptan, apparently for plaintiff’s migraines, but the prescription had lapsed because

plaintiff did not need it while plaintiff had been housed in a cell with tinted windows. When

plaintiff tried to obtain Zolmitriptan, after the prescription had been renewed as of December 16,

2004, it was not made available to him until February 1, 2005. AC, p. 11.

On January 27, 2005, the day plaintiff moved to the second dorm location, P-139-

L, defendant S. Moreno, CMF Unit 1 Facility Captain, ordered the Unit 1 staff to keep the dorm

lights on from 8:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m., for institutional safety and security purposes. This

completely deprived plaintiff of the ability to avoid all brightly lit areas. Id. When plaintiff

attempted to address his medical problem informally, defendant Bick apparently failed to review

plaintiff’s medical file because in his written response, he stated wrongly that the issue did not

implicate the ADA. Plaintiff’s Type I (“brittle”) diabetes and visual light inability or impairment

are conditions limiting plaintiff’s major life activities covered by the ADA. AC, pp. 11-12. His

visual light impairment has been recognized as an ADA disability in his records since April 5,

2000. AC, p. 12. 

Plaintiff states that a copy of a May 25, 2005, CDC-128-C medical chrono

(Exhibit (Exh.) 31 to AC, p. 126) was brought to defendant Thomas, who thereafter refused to

move plaintiff to a cell, thus showing deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-00644-FCD-GGH Document 79 Filed 03/24/08 Page 3 of 8
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

 The court notes that defendant Bick, in response to plaintiff’s motion, has attached, inter 6

alia, a copy of this identical chrono as part of attachment 2, p. 13, to his declaration.

4

condition. Id. The text of the copy of the chrono plaintiff attaches, containing signatures by 6

both Dr. Capozzoli and defendant CMO Bick, states:

I would recommend that Mr. Stringham be provided with cell

housing (single cell housing not required). Mr. Stringham has

diabetes with severe neuropathy involving also autonomic

neuropathy affecting his bowel and bladder control. Additionally,

he has diabetic retinopathy and vascular headaches with

photophobia. Mr. Stringham has a chrono which permits him to

wear dark glasses and cover his cell windows with tinting material

for the above diagnoses. He is also wheelchair dependent as a

result of his neuropathy. For all of the above reasons, I recommend

that he be allowed to live in a cell rather than a dorm environment,

which is less conducive to accommodating his above-mentioned

medical needs. This chrono is valid for one year (through May 15,

2006), subject to annual renewal and to custody and institutional

safety requirements.

AC, pp. 12-13, 126. (It appears in the copy of the exhibit showing both signatures of Dr.

Capozzoli and defendant Dr. Bick that defendant CMO Bick has also underlined and initialed the

last five words of the chrono referencing safety requirements). 

When plaintiff informed Dr. Capozzoli that the chrono did not get him moved to a

cell on July 13, 2005, Dr. Capozzoli noted in plaintiff’s medical file that he told plaintiff he

should appeal the decision “since it was a medical recommendation based on his diagnosis & that

it was a strong recommendation that I would support if asked to by the committee.” AC, p. 13 &

Exh. 32 at p. 127. 

Plaintiff points to various exhibits demonstrating his need for cell housing 

because he is unable to safely navigate a dorm environment due to, inter alia, “severe

sensorimoto polyneuropathy” or numbness in his feet, and “right Charcot joint” or “Charcot

foot.” AC, p. 13, Exhs. 1 - 6, 17-19, 26-29, at pp. 96-101, 112-114, 121- 124.

Plaintiff claims that dorm housing has not allowed for safe passage of his

wheelchair between lockers and bunk beds and that his lack of immediate toilet access in a dorm,

Case 2:05-cv-00644-FCD-GGH Document 79 Filed 03/24/08 Page 4 of 8
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

5

which he has to share with up to eleven other inmates, has caused him episodes of pain and

suffering. AC, p. 14.

Plaintiff cannot safely operate his wheelchair in the dorm, requiring that he walk

some 25 feet to the restroom, numerous times during the day and night, without handrails,

causing him to lose his balance and stumble into bunk beds and lockers. AC, pp. 14, 18-19. 

Plaintiff alleges that after he had been allowed window tint for four years,

defendant Bick inexplicably refused to approve plaintiff’s window tint needs in March of 2004,

thus facilitating the staff’s moving plaintiff to a dorm. When, in February of 2005, defendant

Bick reversed himself and approved plaintiff’s access to window tint (AC, Exh. 29, p. 124),

plaintiff had been placed in a dorm for three months and custody staff refused to move him into a

cell where he could make use of window tint. AC, p. 15. 

Plaintiff’s headaches, which arise daily from his exposure to and intolerance of

light, lead to at least two migraines a week, and have occurred since his December 17, 2004,

move to a dorm. Defendants are aware of plaintiff’s inability to tolerate light but are deliberately

and callously indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of his rights under the Eighth

Amendment. AC, pp. 15-16. 

Defendants’ assertion (AC, Attachment 2H p 66) that plaintiff’s light intolerances

can be ameliorated with dark glasses is untrue because plaintiff requires prescription lenses and

the dark glasses do not fit well enough to block intolerable peripheral light; defendants’

representation that the dark glasses can fit over plaintiff’s prescription glasses runs counter to the

manufacturer’s instructions. AC, p. 17. Moreover, plaintiff asks why, if plaintiff can be

otherwise adequately accommodated, he has been issued two subsequent chronos for tinted

windows. AC, p. 17, Exhs. 29, 31 at pp. 124, 126.

In addition to alleging that defendants have violated his rights under the Eighth

Amendment, he also claims that he is totally medically disabled with regard to his need for an

orthotic brace with cane, wheelchair and crutches, that he is disabled under the ADA, 42 U.S. C.

Case 2:05-cv-00644-FCD-GGH Document 79 Filed 03/24/08 Page 5 of 8
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

6

§§ 12101, et seq., with respect to his Type 1 brittle insulin-dependent diabetic condition, with

secondary medical complications as well as his headaches. AC, pp. 20-21. Plaintiff alleges that

defendants are aware of his disabilities, provided accommodations for them for years, but now

refuse to do so. AC, p. 21. Plaintiff seeks permanent injunctive relief under the ADA against the

entity defendants in the form of being placed in cell housing for the remainder of his prison term;

that he be allowed to affix window tint to exterior cell windows; that he maintain his dark

eyeglasses as needed. Plaintiff seeks money damages from the individual defendants. 

Motion for Appointment of Experts

Plaintiff avers that he will need an expert with respect to issues he has raised

regarding a condition of photophobia, or an inability to tolerate light, as well as for his diabetes

and a nerve damage condition in his lower extremities and stomach (“severe sensorimotor

polyneuropathy and autonomic neuropathy”). Motion, p. 2. He maintains he needs an

opthalmologist not employed by CDCR or CMF to avoid any conflict of interest and in the

interest of justice and to establish his current photophobia condition. Id. Plaintiff states that he

“will accept the testimony of Doctor Charles Crapotta, Certified Opthalmologist, who is familiar

with plaintiff’s eye condition(s) from former treatments of same, as is evidenced in Exhibits 4

(top), 5(top), and 6 (all in amended complaint) if he is available.” Id. Plaintiff states that if Dr.

Carpotta is not available, any certified opthalmologist not employed by CDCR and CMF is

acceptable. Id. 

To establish the two types of neuropathy from which he suffers, plaintiff states

that he will accept the testimony of Dr. Nicholas Capozzoli, who is a Certified Neurologist,

whose familiarity with plaintiff’s neuropathy and migraines are evidenced in Exhibits 17 through

20 and 31 to his amended complaint. Motion, p. 2. If Dr. Cappozzoli is unavailable, plaintiff

states that any certified neurologist not employed by CDCR and CMF would be acceptable. Id.

at 3.

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-00644-FCD-GGH Document 79 Filed 03/24/08 Page 6 of 8
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

7

Finally, plaintiff asks for an Endocrinologist to “establish plaintiff’s diabetic

condition ... in regard to his ADA claims,” but does not know of one not employed by defendants

and thus makes no suggestion as to this individual. Id. 

Plaintiff made a showing adequate to be granted a preliminary injunction in the

form of defendants having been enjoined to place plaintiff in a window tinted cell. See Order,

filed on March 15, 2007. In unsuccessfully opposing plaintiff’s motion, the court found that

defendants had confirmed:

that plaintiff suffers from myriad serious medical conditions....

They do not dispute that until March of 2004, plaintiff was

provided with cell housing with window tinting. Defendants do

not contend that plaintiff’s serious medical condition has any

chance of ameliorating. Plaintiff has submitted evidence that his

treating physician has continued to make a medical

recommendation of his need for window tinting. Defendants,

including a defendant physician, have explicitly conceded that

plaintiff, incarcerated at CMF since 1989, has been a Type 1 brittle

diabetic since his youth, who has developed other serious medical

conditions, including diabetic retinopathy, photophobia,

neuropathy, bowel and bladder issues. Defendant Bick affirms that

since 1998, plaintiff has been classified as permanently mobility

impaired in his lower extremities, averring that this means that he

cannot walk up a flight of stairs or more than a hundred yards

without walking aids. Defendant Bick, as previously noted,

concedes that plaintiff’s medical conditions “are all medical

conditions that substantially limit plaintiff’s major life activities

and are therefore defined as a serious medical need pursuant to the

Americans with Disabilities Act.” 

Findings and Recommendations, filed on 1/8/07, pp. 19-20, adopted by Order, filed on 3/15/07.

Moreover, plaintiff points to supporting exhibits of experts, from whom he seeks

further testimony, attached to his amended complaint.

Given plaintiff’s substantial medical allegations, at first blush, appointment of

experts might appear warranted. However upon scrutiny, the essential medical facts seem

subject to little dispute. The major issue revolves about accommodation of such given conditions

in a prison setting. Given all the work entailed in the undersigned’s chambers in procuring

experts and briefing , and with all the potential for the appearance or advocacy on the part of the

Case 2:05-cv-00644-FCD-GGH Document 79 Filed 03/24/08 Page 7 of 8
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

Should defendants mount a significant challenge to what appears to be almost 7

undisputed facts, the undersigned will reconsider the matter of appointed experts.

8

court which inevitably is attached to the court’s work in preparing the case, the undersigned

believes that the need for court experts at present is insufficient. The undersigned understands

that he has discretion to order the appointment of experts, and even to have defendants pay for

such experts, McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500, 1511 (9th Cir.1991), vacated on other

grounds sub.nom., Helling v. McKinney, 502 U.S. 903 (1991). The undersigned declines to

exercise that discretion for the reasons given.7

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s March 26, 2007 (#44), motion for 

appointment of independent medical expert witnesses is denied.

DATED: 03/24/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

stri0664.dny

Case 2:05-cv-00644-FCD-GGH Document 79 Filed 03/24/08 Page 8 of 8