Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01235/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01235-2/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

1

 Plaintiff also argued that he had a constitutional right to compel defendants to send him

for outside treatment because an earlier procedure went poorly. This claim has been dismissed. 

See March 10, 2004, findings and recommendations; May 7, 2004, order by district court. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE TURNEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-1235 DFL GGH P

vs.

ANNE PALMER, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ summary judgment motion filed

March 24, 2005. For the following reasons, the court recommends that defendants’ motion be

granted.

This action is proceeding on the amended complaint filed February 20, 2003. The

defendants are Warden Ramirez-Palmer, Chief Medical Officer Andreason and Dr. Athanassious. 

Plaintiff alleges that he received inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment

when defendants delayed in providing him with hernia surgery.1

Case 2:02-cv-01235-DFL-GGH Document 84 Filed 10/13/05 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

2

In the pending motion, defendants argue that they did not act with deliberate

indifference to plaintiff’s medical needs. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S. Ct. 1970

(1994) (to succeed on Eighth Amendment claim based on inadequate medical care, prisoner must

demonstrate that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs). 

Defendants observe that plaintiff repeatedly refused a surgical consult for his hernia. When

plaintiff finally consented to the surgical consult, defendants argue that his other medical

problems caused the surgery to be delayed. Defendants argue that when it was determined that

surgery was appropriate, plaintiff was sent to Queen of the Valley hospital where the surgery was

performed. In support of their motion, defendants submitted the declarations of defendants, 46

pages from plaintiff’s medical records and copies of administrative appeals filed by plaintiff

regarding this matter.

On April 18, 2005, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants’ summary judgment

motion. Plaintiff argued that the motion should be denied as untimely. Plaintiff did not address

the merits of defendants’ motion. On May 13, 2005, the court issued an order stating that

defendants’ motion was timely filed. The court granted plaintiff thirty days to file an opposition

addressing the merits of defendants’ motion.

On May 25, 2005, plaintiff filed a one and one-half page opposition which

consists of the following argument: 

1. The factual medical issues giving rise to the Civil cause of action are genuinely

safeguarded by the Fourteenth Amendment.

2. This Hon. Court’s records exhibits the poorly operation Dr. Athanassious 

performed constituted Mal-Practice into deliberate difference removing the tumor 

inside (CMF) and thereafter, another hernia return in plaintiff stomach by the size 

of a football. It’s obvious, why Plaintiff asks for the outside.

3. Plaintiff further asserts if there was ever a case of urgency exists? It’s in his 

case. Plaintiff stomach has growing so big, the skin around Plaintiff naval was 

busting loose in his stomach.

The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act hereinafter “CRIPA” give this 

honorable court the power and authority under CRIPA. Allows the court to order 

some professional help outside medical specialist consultation. 

Case 2:02-cv-01235-DFL-GGH Document 84 Filed 10/13/05 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

3

Therefore, the true facts in this case is a matter of the courts records. It’s 

defendants attorney that’s filing meritless motions trying to get plaintiff’s 

complaint dismiss.

Plaintiff attaches no evidence to his opposition. Nor does the opposition refer the

court to any specific evidence in the record. 

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 a 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

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, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2553 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56(c)). “[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. See id. at 322, 106 S. Ct. at 2552. 

“[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, 106 S. Ct. at

2553.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-01235-DFL-GGH Document 84 Filed 10/13/05 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

4

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. See

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 1356

(1986). In attempting to establish the existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party may

not rely upon the allegations or 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. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11,

106 S. Ct. at 1356 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, see

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510 (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, see Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 1436 (9th Cir. 1987).

Pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998)(en banc) and Klingele 

v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988), on April 30, 2003, the court issued an order

specifically advising plaintiff of his duties in opposing summary judgment motions. The court

told plaintiff how he could show proof of his claims. For example, plaintiff could rely on

affidavits or declarations setting forth the facts that plaintiff believed prove his claims. April 30,

2003, order, p. 4. 

By failing to put forward any evidence plaintiff has not met his burden in

opposing defendants’ summary judgment motion. In effect, plaintiff is tasking the court with

being his advocate. Plaintiff expects the court to go through the record, including the large

number of exhibits submitted by defendants, to determine if there is any merit to his case. 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-01235-DFL-GGH Document 84 Filed 10/13/05 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

5

The Ninth Circuit has stated that pro se litigants must follow the same rules of

procedure that govern other litigants. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (waiver

of originally pled but omitted causes of action in amended complaint). As a general rule, the

judge does not have to scour the record in efforts to find evidence which might defeat summary

judgment, i.e., the litigant must supply the needed evidence within the motion or opposition. See

Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating the

rule for represented parties: “Other circuits are not unanimous, but Forsberg is both binding on us

and consistent with the majority view that the district court may limit its review to the documents

submitted for the purposes of summary judgment and those parts of the record specifically

referenced therein); but see Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 922-923 (2004) (“[b]ecause Jones is

pro se, we must consider as evidence in his opposition to summary judgment all of Jones

contentions offered in motions and pleadings [signed under penalty of perjury].”)

The undersigned will follow established law, and not interject himself into the

lawsuit as an advocate for the pro se plaintiff, be that advocacy on procedural or substantive

grounds. Because plaintiff has not submitted any admissible evidence in his opposition to

defendants’ summary judgment motion, and because he must follow the same rules as

represented parties, defendants’ motion should be granted. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ summary

judgment motion filed March 24, 2005, be granted.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with 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.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 

\\\\\

Case 2:02-cv-01235-DFL-GGH Document 84 Filed 10/13/05 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

6

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: 10/13/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

tur1235.sj

Case 2:02-cv-01235-DFL-GGH Document 84 Filed 10/13/05 Page 6 of 6