Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01222/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01222-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL FROTHINGER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JACQUES HIRSCHLER, 

Defendant.

Case No. CIV S-00-1222 JKS

O R D E R

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Michael Frothinger filed a claim for relief under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. 

Jacques Hirschler, the only remaining Defendant, filed a motion for

summary judgment on October 25, 2004. Docket No. 68. Defendant

also filed a notice to Plaintiff regarding his obligations under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Id.; see also Klingele v.

Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff did not

respond to the motion, and so the Court, “in an abundance of

caution,” issued an order outlining the requirements for opposing a

motion for summary judgment. Docket No. 73. The Court also

allowed Plaintiff until April 25, 2005, to oppose the motion. 

Plaintiff did not file an opposition, although he did file a motion

for an extension of time on May 9, 2005. Docket No. 74. As the

Case 2:00-cv-01222-JKS Document 75 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 5
ORDER 

C:\Documents and Settings\MKrueger\Local

Settings\Temp\notes101AA1\S-00-1222.005.wpd

extension will be denied, the motion for summary judgment is ripe

for decision.

DISCUSSION

The standards for summary judgment are well settled. Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 56 dictates that “[a] party seeking to

recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a

declaratory judgment may . . . move with or without supporting

affidavits for a summary judgment in the party’s favor upon all or

any part thereof.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(b) (providing the same standard for parties defending a claim). 

Summary judgment is appropriate if the Court finds that “the

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions

on file, together with the affidavits . . . show that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is

entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

The Court will construe all evidence and draw all evidentiary

inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. 10A Charles Alan

Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 2727, at 459 & n.5

(3d ed. 1998) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986); Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S.

144 (1970)).

A dispute over a “genuine” material fact exists if the

evidence would allow a reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict

for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.

242, 248 (1986). “[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual

dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly

supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that

there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 247–48

Case 2:00-cv-01222-JKS Document 75 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 5
ORDER 

C:\Documents and Settings\MKrueger\Local

Settings\Temp\notes101AA1\S-00-12232.005.wpd

(emphasis in original). The nonmoving party may defeat the summary

judgment motion by producing sufficient specific facts to establish

that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Celotex

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). However, mere

allegations of factual dispute, without more, will not defeat an

otherwise proper motion. Angel v. Seattle-First Nat’l Bank, 653

F.2d 1293, 1299 (9th Cir. 1981) (“A motion for summary judgment

cannot be defeated by mere conclusory allegations unsupported by

factual data.”).

The Eighth Amendment provides that “[e]xcessive bail shall not

be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual

punishments inflicted.” U.S. Const. amend. VIII. The Eighth

Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel or unusual punishments” “embodies

broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards,

humanity and decency.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976)

(internal citation and quotation omitted). “No static ‘test’ can

exist by which courts determine whether conditions of confinement

are cruel and unusual, for the Eighth Amendment ‘must draw its

meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the

progress of a maturing society.”’ Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337,

346 (1981) (quoting Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958)). 

The government has an “obligation to provide medical care for

those whom it is punishing by incarceration.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at

103. Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s medical needs

violates the Eighth Amendment’s proscription of cruel and unusual

punishment. Id. at 104–105. However, “a plaintiff’s showing of

nothing more than ‘a difference of medical opinion’ as to the need

to pursue one course of treatment over another [is] insufficient,

Case 2:00-cv-01222-JKS Document 75 Filed 12/13/05 Page 3 of 5
ORDER 

C:\Documents and Settings\MKrueger\Local

Settings\Temp\notes101AA1\S-00-12242.005.wpd

as a matter of law, to establish deliberate indifference.” Jackson

v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996).

Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference to his medical needs

following an injury sustained to his back. He was evaluated by

physicians, and no physical indications of injury were found. He

was, however, prescribed pain medication. Additionally, he had a

MRI that was inconclusive. Later, another examination of

Plaintiff’s spine was conducted, and while nothing was found at

that time either, the physician suggested that Plaintiff may be

having muscle spasms. Thereafter Dr. Hirschler denied Plaintiff

further orthopedic consultation and another MRI. In denying the

request for further diagnostics, Dr. Hirschler wrote: 

It is . . . quite clear that there is discordance between the

lack of objective neurologic findings and the intensity of the

subjective symptoms that you report. I find no basis at the

present time to order MRI scanning of the thoracic spine,

physiotherapy, or for that matter an unnecessary orthopedic

consultation. We will continue to monitor your condition with

you.

Docket No. 70, Ex. H.

Plaintiff received continuous palliative care. While it may

be true that more aggressive treatment such as surgery or physical

therapy could have alleviated Plaintiff’s pain as well or better

than medications, it cannot be said that in choosing one course of

treatment over another Dr. Hirschler displayed deliberate

indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs. Jackson, 90 F.3d at

332. Plaintiff was provided medical care in accord with the Eighth

Amendment. As there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding

the constitutional sufficiency of Plaintiff’s medical treatment,

summary judgment is appropriate.

Case 2:00-cv-01222-JKS Document 75 Filed 12/13/05 Page 4 of 5
ORDER 

C:\Documents and Settings\MKrueger\Local

Settings\Temp\notes101AA1\S-00-12252.005.wpd

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time at Docket No. 74

is DENIED . Defendant’s motion for summary judgment at Docket No.

6 8 is GRANTED . 

Dated at Anchorage, Alaska, this 12 day of December 2005.

/s/ James K. Singleton

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR. 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:00-cv-01222-JKS Document 75 Filed 12/13/05 Page 5 of 5