Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01408/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01408-2/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

GREGORY BOGAN,

NO. CIV. S-02-1408 FCD KJM P

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed

this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order 

No. 262. 

On August 30, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations granting in part and denying in part defendants’

motion for summary judgment. Defendants’ motion was granted as

Case 2:02-cv-01408-FCD-KJM Document 51 Filed 10/19/05 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

27

28

1 The magistrate judge construed defendants Runnels and

Briddle’s motion for summary judgment as a motion to dismiss,

ultimately granting the motion on the ground that plaintiff did

not exhaust his administrative remedies. F&R at 2:1-4:9. As to

defendant Baron, the magistrate judge granted summary judgment in

his favor, finding that Baron did not act deliberately

indifferent to plaintiff’s medical needs. F&R at 9:15-22.

2

to all defendants except defendant Mericle.1 Said findings and

recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice

that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty days. 

On September 21, 2005, defendants received an extension of time

to object, and as permitted, filed their objections on October 3,

2005. Plaintiff did not file objections and did not file a

response to defendants’ objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court declines to adopt the findings and

recommendations with respect to the denial of the motion for

summary judgment as to defendant Mericle; in all other respects,

the court adopts the findings and recommendations. Therefore,

for the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion for summary

judgment is GRANTED in its entirety.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Mericle violated his Eighth

Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment when Mericle

was deliberately indifferent in treating plaintiff’s significant

shoulder injury. The Eighth Amendment protects against cruel and

unusual punishment. U.S. Const. amend. VIII. Cruel and unusual

punishment occurs in the medical context, if the mistreatment

rises to the level of deliberate indifference to serious medical

Case 2:02-cv-01408-FCD-KJM Document 51 Filed 10/19/05 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

27

28

3

needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104. Thus, the court

must resolve two inquiries: 1) whether Mericle acted with

deliberate indifference and 2) whether plaintiff had serious

medical needs. 

An official is deliberately indifferent when he knows of and

disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety, or is

aware of facts from which an inference could be drawn that a

substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he draws the

inference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). “A

defendant must purposefully ignore or fail to respond to a

prisoner's pain or possible medical need in order for deliberate

indifference to be established.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d

1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992) (overrulled on other grounds). 

A serious need for medical treatment is required in addition

to deliberate indifference for a finding of cruel and unusual

punishment. “The existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor

or patient would find important and worthy of comment or

treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly

affects an individual's daily activities; or the existence of

chronic and substantial pain are examples of indications that a

prisoner has a serious need for medical treatment.” Id. at 1059-

1060 (internal citations and quotations omitted). 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Mericle was deliberately

indifferent to his serious medical needs in delaying referral to

an orthopedist for plaintiff’s shoulder condition, which

ultimately led to atrophy of his arm. Delay that causes

significant harm is sufficient to constitute cruel and unusual

punishment violative of the Eighth Amendment. See Hunt v. Dental

Case 2:02-cv-01408-FCD-KJM Document 51 Filed 10/19/05 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

27

28

4

Dep't, 865 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1989) (concluding a delay of

dental treatment for three months is sufficient for a finding of

deliberate indifference); Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622

F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (finding it possible that a delay

of treatment for six days could constitute deliberate

indifference).

The magistrate judge found that defendant Mericle was

deliberately indifferent in treating plaintiff’s shoulder injury

since “nothing was done beyond a prescription for pain relievers

for a condition that ultimately led to the atrophy of the arm.” 

(F & R at 9:3-9:5.) Such a finding does not fairly characterize

Mericle’s treatment of plaintiff. 

Mericle provided treatment to plaintiff on a number of

occasions following the subject incident on May 11, 2001 when

plaintiff was stabbed in the tricep. Mericle treated plaintiff

on June 18, 2001 because plaintiff claimed that he was losing

weight and had cancer. Ten days later, Mericle prescribed pain

medication and treated plaintiff for pain he complained of in his

middle finger. On July 3, 2001, plaintiff first complained of

his shoulder pain to Mericle, who in response, prescribed Motrin

and ordered plaintiff to schedule a check up appointment. In

late July 2001, plaintiff complained of shortness of breath and

pain in his shoulder, to which Mericle treated his ailments,

ordered tests, and conducted an x-ray. On August 7, 2001,

Mericle had a follow-up examination with plaintiff regarding his

asthma condition. Thereafter on September 10, 2003, Mericle

evaluated plaintiff’s asthma and shoulder problems and

administered an injection two days later, which relieved

Case 2:02-cv-01408-FCD-KJM Document 51 Filed 10/19/05 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

27

28

5

plaintiff’s shoulder pain for roughly 24 hours. Mericle again

examined plaintiff’s shoulder injury on September 24, 2001,

ordered an x-ray and referred him to an orthopedist, who (albeit

fortuitously) had also been treating plaintiff for the same

shoulder injury (on May 21, 2001 and again on August 20, 2001). 

Plaintiff was examined by the orthopedist, pursuant to Mericle’s

referral, on October 26, 2001. 

In total, Mericle treated plaintiff eight times after he was

stabbed on May 11, 2001. Moreover, it is notable that while the

magistrate judge focused on Mericle’s delay in referring

plaintiff to the orthopedist, the orthopedist had treated

plaintiff twice before Mericle formally made the referral to him. 

As such, Hunt and Broughton, which provide that delay can

constitute deliberate indifference are inapplicable to the

instant case, because contrary to those cases, Mericle timely

treated plaintiff for the shoulder injury he suffered. See

Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988)

(finding no delay where record demonstrated the defendants were

attentive to the plaintiff’s medical needs). A reasonable trier

of fact could not find that Mericle acted deliberately

indifferent to plaintiff’s medical needs by treating plaintiff

eight times for a variety of aliments between June and September

2001, prescribing medication on three separate occasions to

alleviate his shoulder pain, and employing various tests and

procedures to further evaluate the scope of plaintiff’s shoulder

injury, ultimately resulting in a referral to a specialist (all

within a 75 day period).

Case 2:02-cv-01408-FCD-KJM Document 51 Filed 10/19/05 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

27

28

6

Because the court finds that defendant Mericle did not act

deliberately indifferent in treating plaintiff’s shoulder injury,

the court GRANTS defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its

entirety. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 19, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-01408-FCD-KJM Document 51 Filed 10/19/05 Page 6 of 6