Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02192/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02192-11/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EARL D. SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R. RODRIGUEZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-2192 JAM AC P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against three defendants on the following claims: Dr. Grant 

Rogero, for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment; correctional officer R. Rodriguez, for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious 

medical needs and for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; and correctional officer H. 

Singh for failure to protect plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. This order addresses 

the parties’ discovery disputes, plaintiff’s request for subpoenas duces tecum, and defendant 

Rogero’s motion for summary judgment.1

//// 

//// 

 

1

 Defendant Rodriguez and Singh’s pending motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 76, will be 

addressed in a separate order. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 28
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 

2

I. Plaintiff’s Allegations 

Plaintiff alleges that on November 8, 2012, he experienced excruciating abdominal pain 

and was rushed from Mule Creek State Prison to an outside hospital where a “c-scan x-ray” was 

taken. ECF No. 1 at 7. After the CT scan was taken, defendant correctional officers Singh and 

Rodriguez took plaintiff to a holding cell near defendant Rogero’s2 office. From the holding cell, 

plaintiff overheard defendant Dr. Rogero tell Singh and Rodriguez that plaintiff had a lacerated 

spleen, a bleeding right kidney, and genital warts and should be scheduled for surgery 

immediately. Id. at 8. Rodriguez told Dr. Rogero that plaintiff was a snitch who had a civil 

lawsuit pending against several correctional officers, and asked Dr. Rogero to schedule plaintiff’s 

surgery in April so that plaintiff would not be able to go to trial. Id. at 9. Dr. Rogero later 

proposed another surgery date and Rodriguez again called plaintiff a snitch and made reference to 

plaintiff’s pending lawsuit. Plaintiff remained in the hospital for three days and was returned to 

prison without obtaining a scheduled surgery date.3

II. Background Relevant to Discovery Issues 

On September 30, 2015, the court issued an order addressing plaintiff’s motions to compel 

discovery from defendants Rogero and Rodriguez. ECF No. 79. Defendant Rogero was directed 

to file a statement with the court indicating whether he received any of the following from San 

Joaquin General Hospital by way of subpoena: (1) records related to medication plaintiff was 

given; (2) a copy of plaintiff’s November 8, 2012 CT scan; (3) the audio dictation recording 

associated with plaintiff’s CT scan; or (4) video footage of plaintiff shackled to his hospital bed. 

If Rogero received any of these items, he was directed to produce them to plaintiff. 

As to defendant Rodriguez, the court’s September 30, 2015 order directed Rodriguez to 

supplement his response to Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 9, Set Two. With respect to Interrogatory 

No. 3, Rodriguez was given the option of filing a statement with the court or providing his 

 

2

 Although plaintiff refers to Dr. Rogero as “Delgados” through a good portion of his complaint, 

in the Answer filed by this defendant, he is identified as Dr. Grant Rogero. See ECF No. 27. The 

court will use the name of Rogero to identify this individual. 

3

 A more detailed summary of plaintiff’s allegations is set forth in this court’s order filed 

December 23, 2014. See ECF No. 36 at 2-4. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 2 of 28
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

supplemental response directly to plaintiff. As to Interrogatory No. 9, Rodriguez was directed to 

provide his supplemental response directly to plaintiff. In all other respects, plaintiff’s motions to 

compel were denied. 

On October 8, 2015, defendant Rogero filed a statement with the court indicating that, in 

response to the court’s September 30, 2015 order, he produced to plaintiff all of the records he 

received from San Joaquin General Hospital by subpoena, including a DVD-R disk of plaintiff’s 

November 8, 2012 CT scan. ECF No. 80 at 1-2, 6-7. Defendant Rogero also confirmed in his 

statement that he did not receive any dictation recording or video footage of plaintiff. Id. at 3. 

On October 18, 2015, plaintiff filed objections to defendant Rogero’s October 8, 2015 

statement. ECF No. 84. On the same date, plaintiff also filed a “motion to compel 

interrogatories,” seeking to compel defendant Rodriguez to comply with the court’s September 

30, 2015 order. ECF No. 85. 

On October 25, 2015, plaintiff filed further objections to defendant Rogero’s October 8, 

2015 statement. ECF No. 87. 

On November 3, 2015, defendant Rodriguez filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion to 

compel interrogatories. ECF No. 86. 

III. Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendant Rogero’s October 8, 2015 Statement 

In his first set of objections, plaintiff contends that defendant Rogero failed to comply 

with the court’s September 30, 2015 order. ECF No. 84. Specifically, plaintiff claims that 

Rogero’s October 8, 2015 statement failed to address whether he had possession of the dictation 

voice recording or the video footage requested by plaintiff. Id. at 1-2, 3-4. Plaintiff contends that 

Rogero has not produced either of the items to plaintiff and that Rogero should be required to 

provide a receipt of all the items he received by way of subpoena from San Joaquin General 

Hospital. Id. at 4. In addition, plaintiff asserts that defendant Rogero sent the DVD-R disk of 

plaintiff’s November 8, 2012 CT scan to plaintiff in bad faith, knowing that the disk would be 

confiscated by prison officials upon arrival. Id. at 2-3. 

In his second set of objections, plaintiff asserts that defendant Rogero has possession of 

the voice recording associated with his November 8, 2012 CT scan, but is concealing it from 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 3 of 28
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

plaintiff.4 ECF No. 87. Plaintiff requests that the court issue an order directing defendant Rogero 

or San Joaquin General Hospital to explain “why they are concealing information in a federal 

civil action.” Id. at 3. 

The court has reviewed defendant Rogero’s October 8, 2015 statement, in which Rogero 

clearly states that he did not receive any dictation recordings or any security footage as a result of 

any subpoena. See ECF No. 80 at 2-3. In light of Rogero’s representations, the undersigned 

finds that Rogero has complied with the court’s September 30, 2015 order and no further 

production will be required. 

As to plaintiff’s claim that Rogero acted in bad faith when he produced a copy of 

plaintiff’s November 8, 2012 CT scan to plaintiff, plaintiff’s contention is meritless. Plaintiff 

appears to assert that Rogero sent the disk to plaintiff, rather than to the court, because he knew it 

would be confiscated by prison officials upon arrival. Plaintiff explains that he wanted the disk to 

be “logged with the court” rather than sent to plaintiff because “plaintiff is clearly not a doctor . . . 

and has no means to review the [disk] except by the courts through a radiologist doctor.” ECF 

No. 84 at 3. Plaintiff is advised that he has no right to have defendant “log evidence” with the 

court on his behalf. Even if plaintiff’s CT scan had been logged with the court, this would not 

result in the scan being reviewed and interpreted by a radiologist on plaintiff’s behalf. Plaintiff’s 

objections are overruled. 

IV. Plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel Interrogatories” from Defendant Rodriguez and 

Request for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with a Court Order 

In his “motion to compel interrogatories,” plaintiff seeks to compel defendant Rodriguez 

to comply with the court’s September 30, 2015 by providing supplemental responses to plaintiff’s 

Request for Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 3 and 9. ECF No. 85 at 1. Plaintiff claims that 

because defendant Rodriguez has not provided plaintiff with any supplemental response as 

 

4

 Plaintiff explains that he requested the voice recording from Kern Valley State Prison and was 

informed that the recording could only be obtained from San Joaquin General Hospital. Plaintiff 

asserts that because defendant Rogero subpoenaed all video recordings and voice recordings of 

plaintiff from San Joaquin General Hospital, Rogero received a copy of the voice recording as a 

result of the subpoena. See ECF No. 87. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 4 of 28
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

required by the court’s September 30, 2015 order, Rodriguez is in violation of the court’s order 

and should be sanctioned. Id. at 2, 4-5. Plaintiff further contends that he should be allowed to 

use defendant Rodriguez’s failure to respond as an admission that plaintiff was in a “holding cell” 

while at San Joaquin General Hospital. Id. at 4. 

In opposition, defendant Rodriguez asserts that he served plaintiff with supplemental 

responses to plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories, Nos. 3 and 9, on October 8, 2015. ECF No. 86 

at 2. A copy of defendant’s supplemental responses is attached as Exhibit 1 to defendant’s 

opposition. ECF No. 86 Exh. 1 at 8-13. Defendant asserts that sanctions are not warranted 

because he complied with the court’s September 30, 2015 order. 

The court’s September 30, 2015 order required defendant Rodriguez to supplement his 

responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 9 within ten days. While it appears that plaintiff had not 

yet received Rodriguez’s responses when plaintiff filed his motion on October 18, 2015, the proof 

of service attached to Rodriguez’s supplemental responses is dated October 8, 2015. ECF No. 86 

at 13. Accordingly, it appears that defendant Rodriguez provided supplemental responses to 

plaintiff in a timely manner. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Rodriguez to comply with the court’s 

September 30, 2015 order is therefore denied. 

To the extent plaintiff requests that defendant Rodriguez be sanctioned for his failure to 

comply with the court’s September 30, 2015 order, this request is also denied because defendant 

provided plaintiff with supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 9. While the court 

notes that Rodriguez should have filed a statement with the court (rather than responding directly 

to plaintiff) if he was unable to determine whether the appeals filed against him included claims 

of retaliation,5

 the error appears inadvertent. Under these circumstances, the court finds that 

 

5

 Plaintiff’s interrogatory No. 3 inquired as to whether defendant Rodriguez had previously had 

any 602 inmate appeals filed against him that included claims of retaliation. Rodriguez 

responded that he did not recall whether either of the two appeals filed against him involved 

retaliation claims. In the court’s September 30, 2015 order, Rodriguez was directed to either file 

a statement with the court describing his efforts to respond to plaintiff’s interrogatory, or, in the 

alternative, to inform plaintiff whether the two appeals filed against him were for retaliation. 

Because defendant Rodriguez was unable to determine if the appeals filed against him included 

claims of retaliation, his explanation as to why he was unable to locate the information should 

have been filed with the court. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 5 of 28
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

sanctions are unwarranted. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is denied. 

V. Plaintiff’s Requests for Subpoenas Duces Tecum 

It has come to the court’s attention that plaintiff’s requests for subpoenas duces tecum 

filed in January, February, and March 2015 remain outstanding. Plaintiff seeks court orders 

granting three subpoenas duces tecum, production of documents, and service of the subpoenas by 

the U.S. Marshall. See ECF Nos. 44, 53, 57. Plaintiff requests that the court direct the U.S. 

Marshall to serve a subpoena duces tecum upon non-parties San Joaquin General Hospital, Mule 

Creek State Prison, and Kern Valley State Prison. See id. 

A. Legal Standards 

A subpoena may direct a non-party, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, to 

produce documents or other tangible objects for inspection. The court must “issue and serve all 

process and perform all such duties” for a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(d). Plaintiff, proceeding in forma pauperis, thus “is generally entitled to obtain service of a 

subpoena duces tecum by the United States Marshal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).” Heilman v. Lyons, 

2:09-cv-2721 KJN P, 2010 WL 5168871, *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2010); but see, Garcia v. Grimm, 

2012 WL 216565, * 4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2012) (citing Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211, 212 

(9th Cir.1989) (“Plaintiff, however, is responsible for paying all fees and costs associated with the 

subpoenas . . . fees are not waived based on Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status”). 

Because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b) requires personal service of a subpoena, 

“[d]irecting the Marshal’s Office to expend its resources personally serving a subpoena is not 

taken lightly by the court.” Austin v. Winett, 1:04-cv-05104-DLB PC, 2008 WL 5213414, *1 

(E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2008); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Limitations on a subpoena include the relevance 

of the information sought as well as the burden and expense to the non-party in providing the 

requested information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 45. A motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum 

should be supported by clear identification of the documents sought and a showing that the 

records are obtainable only through the identified third-party. See, e.g., Davis v. Ramen, 1:06-cv01216-AWI-SKO PC, 2010 WL 1948560, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2010); Williams v. Adams, 

No. 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS PC, 2010 WL 148703, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2010). “The 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 6 of 28
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 

7

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were not intended to burden a non-party with a duty to suffer 

excessive or unusual expenses in order to comply with a subpoena duces tecum.” Badman v. 

Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 605 (M.D. Pa. 1991). Non-parties are “entitled to have the benefit of this 

Court’s vigilance” in considering these factors. Badman, 139 F.R.D. at 605. 

B. Discussion 

The subpoenas that plaintiff has submitted are defective inasmuch as they are not signed 

by the Clerk of the Court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(3) requires that “[t]he clerk 

must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party who requests it. That party must 

complete it before service.” Therefore, at the outset, a new subpoena, blank but signed by the 

Clerk of the Court, must issue to plaintiff. 

i. San Joaquin General Hospital (ECF No. 44) 

Plaintiff seeks to subpoena copies of the following documents from the Custodian of 

Records for San Joaquin General Hospital: 

1. Seven photographs, taken from various angles, of a “holding cell” inside San Joaquin 

General Hospital. See ECF No. 44 at 2. 

2. A complete copy of all “med log’s” of medication given to plaintiff during his stay at 

San Joaquin General Hospital from November 8, 2012 through November 10, 2012. 

ECF No. 44 at 3. 

3. A copy of plaintiff’s “actual c-scan” taken on November 8, 2012 by Linda Hodges. 

ECF No. 44 at 3. 

4. A copy of the “actual CDCR security video footage of plaintiff Earl D. Smith shackled 

to hospital bed for two plus days.” ECF No. 44 at 3.

5. Copies of any rules or memoranda “governing CDCR prisoners while being held at 

San Joaquin General Hospital on a medical stay.” ECF No. 44 at 3. 

Plaintiff again appears to seek photographs that do not already exist. See ECF No. 44 at 

2. Plaintiff has previously been advised that the court will not require defendants to take 

photographs or create evidence for plaintiff. For the same reasons, the court will not require nonparty San Joaquin General Hospital to take photographs or create evidence for plaintiff. With 

respect to the photographs, plaintiff’s request for a subpoena accordingly is denied. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 7 of 28
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 

8

Plaintiff’s request for copies of his “med log’s” and his November 8, 2012 CT scan is 

denied as moot since defendant Rogero has provided plaintiff with the requested items. 

With respect to plaintiff’s request for video footage of plaintiff shackled to his hospital 

bed at San Joaquin General Hospital, it is not clear that this footage exists, as defendant Rogero 

already subpoenaed any recordings of plaintiff from San Joaquin General Hospital and did not 

receive any video footage as a result of his subpoena. However, if plaintiff’s case proceeds to 

trial, such footage would be relevant in that it could provide additional evidence of plaintiff’s 

contact with defendants and other doctors.6 Furthermore, the court is satisfied that if the footage 

exists, it is likely obtainable only through San Joaquin General Hospital. Accordingly, plaintiff 

shall be permitted to subpoena the video footage from San Joaquin General Hospital. In his 

request, plaintiff should specify the date of the requested footage, i.e. November 8, 2012 through 

November 11, 2012. 

Plaintiff’s also requests copies of any rules or memoranda that govern CDCR prisoners 

“being held at San Joaquin General Hospital on a medical stay.” Plaintiff made a similar, 

although not identical, request to defendant Rogero,7

 who indicated that he did not have 

possession, custody, or control of the requested documents. Because plaintiff appears to be 

asking for copies of San Joaquin General Hospital’s policies with respect to CDCR inmate 

patients, rather than CDCR’s own policies governing those same patients, the court is satisfied 

that the documents requested are likely obtainable only through third party San Joaquin General 

Hospital. Plaintiff will be permitted to subpoena these policies from San Joaquin General 

Hospital, which may provide additional support for plaintiff’s account of the events that occurred 

during plaintiff’s stay at San Joaquin General Hospital in November 2012. However, plaintiff 

will be required to limit his request to the policies that were in effect in November 2012. 

 

6

 The existence of this footage is not determinative of the pending motions for summary 

judgment because on summary judgment plaintiff’s verified allegations of contact with 

defendants and other medical staff are taken as true. 

7

 Request for Production of Documents No. 5, Set Two, sought the following from defendant 

Rogero: “Copy’s of any memorandums documents governing rules of security of hospital in 

regards to the inmate ward part of hospital where inmates are admitted.” ECF No. 35 at 4. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 8 of 28
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 

9

In sum, plaintiff will be allowed to subpoena the following from San Joaquin General 

Hospital: (1) security video footage of plaintiff shackled to a hospital bed in San Joaquin General 

Hospital for two or more days beginning on November 8, 2012; and (2) copies of any hospital 

rules or memoranda that were in effect in November 2012 governing CDCR prisoners being held 

at San Joaquin General Hospital during a medical stay. 

Plaintiff will be provided a new subpoena form and must return it within 30 days. His 

amended subpoena must contain only the document requests as narrowed and set forth 

immediately above. Plaintiff’s subpoena form should designate a reasonable time, place, and 

manner for production. Compliance with this order is required for the court to direct the U.S. 

Marshall to serve a subpoena duces tecum. 

 Discovery will be reopened for the limited purpose of allowing plaintiff’s subpoena duces 

tecum, as limited herein, to be served on non-party San Joaquin General Hospital. In the court’s 

view, the documents at issue in the subpoena will not be determinative of defendants’ motions for 

summary judgment, so supplemental briefing will not be required. However, if plaintiff believes 

that either item bears on defendants Rodriguez and Singh’s pending motion for summary 

judgment, plaintiff may file a request for leave to file a supplemental brief.8

ii. Mule Creek State Prison (ECF No. 53) 

In his next request, plaintiff requests that he be permitted to subpoena from the Custodian 

of Records for Mule Creek State Prison “all previous civil complaints filed by inmates against 

defendant R. Rodriguez, including all 602’s.” ECF No. 53 at 2. Plaintiff asserts that defendant’s 

“work history” is relevant to proving plaintiff’s claims that defendant Rodriguez retaliated against 

plaintiff and was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Id. at 2. Plaintiff 

appears to assert that the requested documents will be relevant to proving “present and prior bad 

acts in [Rodriguez’s] dealings while [e]mployed by (CDCR) with inmate prisoners.” Id. 

At the outset, the court notes that plaintiff has made no showing as to why he could not 

obtain these documents by way of discovery propounded on defendant Rodriguez. However, the 

 

8

 The court has determined that neither item will affect the court’s resolution of defendant 

Rogero’s motion for summary judgment. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 9 of 28
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 

10

court notes that in response to the court’s September 30, 2015 order directing defendant 

Rodriguez to supplement his response to plaintiff’s interrogatory inquiring whether any inmates 

had filed inmate appeals against Rodriguez that included claims of retaliation, defendant 

Rodriguez indicated that he was unable to answer that question. See ECF No. 86 at 2-3. 

Specifically, counsel for defendants filed a declaration explaining that she requested 

documentation from CDCR regarding any staff complaints initiated against defendant Rodriguez. 

Id. at 5. Counsel explained that the inmate/parolee appeals tracking system printout provided by 

CDCR indicated that only one staff complaint had been initiated against defendant Rodriguez. Id. 

Counsel stated in her declaration that no other record of this appeal (log number MCSP-A-07-

1593) exists, aside from the inmate/appeals tracking printout. Id. Pursuant to CDCR’s document 

retention policy, staff complaints are considered active until resolved, retained for five years, and 

then shredded. As the appeal in question was filed in 2007, it has since been shredded. See id. at 

5-6. In light of counsel’s sworn declaration that a copy of the only inmate appeal filed against 

defendant Rodriguez no longer exists, it would be futile to permit plaintiff to subpoena this 

document from Mule Creek State Prison. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request to subpoena all inmate 

complaints filed against defendant Rodriguez is denied. 

To the extent plaintiff seeks to subpoena all previous civil complaints filed against 

defendant Rodriguez from Mule Creek State Prison, plaintiff again fails to explain why he could 

not obtain this information by way of discovery propounded on defendant Rodriguez. Here, the 

court notes that defendant Rodriguez has already stated under oath that as far as he is aware, 

while employed by CDCR, he has been named as a defendant only in the instant civil lawsuit. 

See ECF No. 79 at 25. Accordingly, it appears that allowing plaintiff to serve a subpoena for 

these documents would be futile, as defendant Rodriguez has not been named as a defendant in 

any other inmate lawsuits. Plaintiff’s request for a subpoena is denied. 

iii. Kern Valley State Prison (ECF No. 57) 

In his final request, plaintiff seeks to subpoena the following documents from the 

Custodian of Records for Kern Valley State Prison, where he is currently incarcerated: 

1. A copy of plaintiff’s “c-scan x-ray” taken on February 18, 2015. ECF No. 57 at 2. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 10 of 28
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 

11

2. A copy of all medical records pertaining to health care given to plaintiff while in 

CDCR custody, including all blood tests with results and a complete copy of 

plaintiff’s medical file that is electronically stored by CDCR. ECF No. 57 at 3. 

To the extent plaintiff requests a copy of the results of his February 18, 2015 CT scan, 

plaintiff’s request is denied as moot because defendants Rodriguez and Singh have provided 

plaintiff with a copy of this report. See ECF No. 76-3, Exh. V at 83. 

To the extent plaintiff requests a copy of the x-ray image of his February 18, 2015 CT 

scan, plaintiff does not explain why he could not obtain this item by way of discovery 

propounded on defendants Singh and Rodriguez, who appear to have access to the scan. See ECF 

No. 76-3 at 8. The court notes that plaintiff once again requests that the scan be forwarded to the 

court to be marked as evidence rather than produced directly to plaintiff. See ECF No. 57 at 2. 

To the extent plaintiff believes that the court will interpret the scan through a radiologist if the 

court receives a copy of plaintiff’s scan, plaintiff is mistaken. Like plaintiff, the court cannot 

interpret the scan without a medical expert. At this stage of the proceedings, no medical expert 

has been appointed.9 Plaintiff’s request to subpoena the x-ray image from his February 18, 2015 

CT scan, for forwarding to the court, will be denied at this time. However, if plaintiff wishes to 

view the scan himself, he may file a request with the court, and the court will direct counsel for 

defendants Singh and Rodriguez to make arrangements for plaintiff to view the scan.10

As to plaintiff’s request for copies of his prison medical file and blood test results, 

plaintiff does not explain why he cannot obtain this same information by reviewing his medical 

file through the prison’s “Olsen review” process. Plaintiff does not allege that he attempted to 

review his medical file or that his requests to review his file have been denied. Moreover, the 

medical records plaintiff has submitted thus far suggest that plaintiff has access to his medical 

records, including blood test results. In light of plaintiff’s apparent ability to review his medical 

 

9

 For these reasons, the availability of the image of plaintiff’s February 18, 2015 CT scan has no 

bearing on either of defendants’ pending motions for summary judgment. 

10 In light of plaintiff’s prior assertion that he is “not a doctor” and cannot interpret CT scans on 

his own, and his general objections to the November 8, 2012 CT scan being sent to him in prison, 

the court does not interpret plaintiff’s current subpoena request to ask that the February 18, 2015 

CT scan be produced to plaintiff himself. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 11 of 28
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 

12

file through the Olsen review process, plaintiff’s request to subpoena his medical records from 

Kern Valley State Prison is denied. 

VI. Defendant Rogero’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

Plaintiff proceeds against defendant Rogero for alleged violations of plaintiff’s rights 

under the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, plaintiff claims that on November 8, 2012, defendant 

radiologist Dr. Rogero was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs when he 

reviewed plaintiff’s CT scan and determined that plaintiff required surgery due to a lacerated 

spleen and bleeding kidney, but failed to schedule plaintiff for surgery. See ECF No. 1. 

Defendant Rogero moves for summary judgment the grounds that plaintiff did not have a 

serious medical need that required surgery on November 8, 2012 and defendant Rogero did not 

act with deliberate indifference when he reviewed plaintiff’s CT scan. ECF No. 69-2 at 1-2. 

A. Legal Standards for Summary Judgment 

Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party “shows that 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). Under summary judgment practice, the moving party “initially bears the burden of 

proving the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Nursing Home Pension Fund, Local 144 

v. Oracle Corp. (In re Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation), 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). The moving party may accomplish 

this by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, 

electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for 

purposes of the motion only), admission, interrogatory answers, or other materials” or by showing 

that such materials “do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that the 

adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 56(c)(1)(A), (B). 

 When the non-moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, “the moving party need 

only prove that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.” Oracle 

Corp., 627 F.3d at 387 (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). 

Indeed, summary judgment should be entered, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 12 of 28
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 

13

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 

Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. “[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 ... is satisfied.” Id. at 323. 

 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 (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(c)(1); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11. Moreover, “[a] Plaintiff's verified complaint 

may be considered as an affidavit in opposition to summary judgment if it is based on personal 

knowledge and sets forth specific facts admissible in evidence.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

1132 n.14 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).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 (1986); T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Assoc., 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). 

 In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not 

establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the claimed factual 

dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at 

trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631. Thus, the “purpose of summary judgment is to ‘pierce 

 

11 Plaintiff filed a verified complaint in this case. See ECF No. 1. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 13 of 28
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 

14

the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.’” 

Matsushita, 475 U .S. at 587 (citations omitted). 

 “In evaluating the evidence to determine whether there is a genuine issue of fact,” the 

court draws “all reasonable inferences supported by the evidence in favor of the non-moving 

party.” Walls v. Central Costa County Transit Authority, 653 F.3d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 2011) (per 

curiam). It is the opposing party's obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the 

inference may be drawn. See Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244–45 

(E.D. Cal. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 1987). Finally, to demonstrate a genuine 

issue, the opposing party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt 

as to the material facts. ... Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of 

fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 

587 (citation omitted). 

 In applying these rules, district courts must “construe liberally motion papers and 

pleadings filed by pro se inmates and ... avoid applying summary judgment rules strictly.” 

Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010). However, “[if] a party fails to properly 

support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact, as 

required by Rule 56(c), the court may ... consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion 

....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). 

B. Legal Standard for Eighth Amendment Claim 

In order to state a §1983 claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment based on 

inadequate medical care, plaintiff must allege “acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence 

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). 

To prevail, plaintiff must show both that his medical needs were objectively serious, and that 

defendants possessed a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 299 

(1991); McKinney v. Anderson, 959 F.2d 853, 854 (9th Cir. 1992) (on remand). The requisite 

state of mind for a medical claim is “deliberate indifference.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 

5 (1992). 

//// 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 14 of 28
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 

15

A serious medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in 

further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Indications that a 

prisoner has a serious need for medical treatment are the following: 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. See, e.g., Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1337-

41 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing cases); Hunt v. Dental Dept., 865 F.2d 198, 200-01 (9th Cir. 1989). 

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX 

Technologies v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). 

In Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994), the Supreme Court established a very 

demanding standard for “deliberate indifference.” Negligence is insufficient. Farmer, 511 U.S. 

at 835. Even civil recklessness (failure to act in the face of an unjustifiably high risk of harm 

which is so obvious that it should be known) is insufficient to establish an Eighth Amendment 

violation. Id. at 836-37. It not enough that a reasonable person would have known of the risk or 

that a defendant should have known of the risk. Id. at 842. Rather, deliberate indifference is 

established only where the defendant subjectively “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to 

inmate health and safety.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal 

citation omitted). Deliberate indifference can be established “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.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). 

A physician need not fail to treat an inmate altogether in order to violate that inmate's Eighth 

Amendment rights. Ortiz v. City of Imperial, 884 F.2d 1312, 1314 (9th Cir.1989). A failure to 

competently treat a serious medical condition, even if some treatment is prescribed, may 

constitute deliberate indifference in a particular case. Id. However, “[a] difference of opinion 

between a physician and the prisoner – or between medical professionals – concerning what 

medical care is appropriate does not [without more] amount to deliberate of indifference.” Snow 

v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 987 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 

744 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir. 2014). To establish that the difference of opinion rises to the level 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 15 of 28
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 

16

of deliberate indifference, a prisoner must show that the defendant’s chosen course of treatment 

was medically unacceptable and in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health. 

Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, in cases involving complex 

medical issues where plaintiff contests the type of treatment he received, expert opinion will 

almost always be necessary to establish the necessary level of deliberate indifference. 

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

C. Arguments of the Parties 

i. Defendant 

Defendant Rogero contends that summary judgment is warranted because plaintiff did not 

have a serious medical need on November 8, 2012 and did not require surgery. ECF No. 69-2 at 

1. Defendant asserts that, as a radiologist contracted to work at San Joaquin General Hospital, he 

reviewed plaintiff’s November 8, 2012 CT scan and submitted a report finding that plaintiff’s 

liver, spleen, adrenals, and kidneys were “unremarkable.” Id. at 2. Defendant contends that he 

has never met plaintiff and, beyond interpreting plaintiff’s CT scan, did not make any decisions 

regarding plaintiff’s medical treatment or whether surgery was appropriate. Id. In support of his 

motion for summary judgment, defendant provides the declaration of Dr. Arthur Dublin, who 

opines that plaintiff’s November 8, 2012 CT scan was normal, there was no evidence that plaintiff 

required surgery, and, in Dr. Dublin’s professional medical opinion, defendant Rogero’s review 

of plaintiff’s CT scan was appropriate and medically acceptable. ECF No. 69-4 at 1-2. 

Defendant asserts that in light of the complete lack of evidence supporting plaintiff’s claim that 

he required surgery due to a bleeding kidney and lacerated spleen, defendant is entitled to 

summary judgment. ECF No. 69-2 at 2, 6. 

ii. Plaintiff’s Opposition 

Plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 70, as 

well as a statement of disputed facts, ECF No. 71. It is well-established that the pleadings of pro 

se litigants are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). Nevertheless, “[p]ro se litigants must 

follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 16 of 28
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 

17

567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on another ground by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 

(9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). However, the unrepresented prisoners' choice to proceed without 

counsel “is less than voluntary” and they are subject to the “handicaps . . . detention necessarily 

imposes upon a litigant,” such as “limited access to legal materials” as well as “sources of proof.” 

Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1986). Inmate litigants, therefore, 

should not be held to a standard of “strict literalness” with respect to the requirements of the 

summary judgment rule. Id. 

 The court is mindful of the Ninth Circuit's more overarching caution in this context, as 

noted above, that district courts are to “construe liberally motion papers and pleadings filed by 

pro se inmates and . . . avoid applying summary judgment rules strictly.” Ponder, 611 F.3d 

at 1150. Accordingly, the court considers the record before it in its entirety despite plaintiff's 

failure to be in strict compliance with the applicable rules. However, only those assertions in the 

opposition which have evidentiary support will be considered. 

 In opposition to defendant’s summary judgment motion, plaintiff maintains that he heard 

defendant Rogero tell defendants Rodriguez and Singh that plaintiff had a lacerated spleen, a 

bleeding right kidney, and a genital wart, and that plaintiff needed to be scheduled for surgery. 

See ECF No. 71 at 2. Plaintiff asserts that the reason plaintiff’s medical records do not reflect 

this diagnosis is because defendant Rogero changed his report after speaking with defendants 

Rodriguez and Singh about plaintiff’s upcoming trial in another lawsuit. See id. Plaintiff admits 

that he has not yet received surgery or been told by another doctor that he needs surgery, but 

contends that this is because prison staff are aware of the instant lawsuit and are covering up 

plaintiff’s true test results. See id. at 4-5. Plaintiff contends that after he returned to prison, his 

abdominal pain continued and he eventually began to see blood in his urine, which is evidence 

that plaintiff requires surgery and that prison staff are covering up plaintiff’s test results. See id. 

With respect to Dr. Dublin’s declaration, plaintiff appears to assert that the reason Dr. Dublin 

concluded that plaintiff’s November 8, 2012 CT scan was normal is because defendant Rogero 

altered the scan before Dr. Dublin reviewed it. See ECF No. 71 at 7-8. Plaintiff also asserts that 

Dr. Dublin’s conclusion is inconsistent with plaintiff’s medical records. Id. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 17 of 28
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 

18

 In support of his opposition, plaintiff submits medical records, several health care appeals 

related to a CT scan that was taken in 2015, and plaintiff’s own declaration. See ECF No. 71 at 

18-40. 

D. Undisputed Facts12

 At all times relevant, plaintiff was an inmate incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison. See 

ECF No. 1 at 7. 

 Defendant Grant Rogero is a licensed physician and radiologist. ECF No. 27 

 On November 8, 2012, plaintiff was taken from Mule Creek State Prison to San Joaquin 

General Hospital due to complaints of abdominal pain. ECF No. 69-7 at 13; ECF No. 1 at 

7. 

 On November 8, 2012, plaintiff had a CT scan of his abdomen and pelvis at San Joaquin 

General Hospital. ECF No. 69-7 at 12. 

 On November 8, 2012, defendant Rogero reviewed the CT scan. ECF No. 69-7 at 12. 

 Defendant Rogero’s report, dated November 8, 2012, stated: 

FINDINGS: The lung bases appear clear. Liver, spleen, adrenals 

and kidneys are unremarkable. There is considerable stool 

throughout the colon. There is no free air. Trace free fluid is seen 

in the right lower quadrant at the cecal tip. Appendix is never 

definitively identified. It may be present on axial images 54 and 

55. There is no bowel obstruction. 

 ECF No. 69-7 at 12. 

 The technician listed on defendant Rogero’s report is Linda Hodges. ECF No. 69-7 at 12. 

 On November 8, 2012, a “History & Physical” report was prepared by Dr. Tarig 

Samarkandy. ECF No. 1 at 27. The report states in relevant part: 

Admitting Diagnosis: Abdominal pain. 

History of Present Illness: This is a 39-year-old male who has been 

referred from Mule Creek Prison presenting with a one day history 

of nonspecific abdominal pain. Patient mentioned that he ate 

something last night and claims that his jail mate put bleach in his 

food and when he ate it he felt bad, the next day having severe 

abdominal pain in the periumbilical and lower abdomen. No 

associated nausea or vomiting was noted. No change in bowel 

habits. No fevers, chills, or rigors were noted. The patient denies 

any history of anorexia or loss of appetite; however, he feels 

 

12 Relevant factual disputes are noted. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 18 of 28
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 

19

hungry. No history of chest pain. Review of other systems 

unremarkable. 

Past Medical History: Unremarkable. 

Past Surgical History: Anal fissure. Patient had a fistulotomy in 

2009. Genital warts. Gunshot wound to the neck a long time ago 

with surgery. The patient currently has some weakness; however, it 

has resolved. 

. . . 

Imaging: The patient had a CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis on 

admission which showed no free air and a trace free fluid seen in 

the lower right quadrant at the cecal tip. Appendix is not identified. 

There is no sign of bowel obstruction. There was a large amount of 

stool throughout the entire colon. 

Assessment and Plan: This is a 39-year-old male presenting with 

nonspecific abdominal pain of unknown etiology. Will observe that 

patient clinically with serial abdominal exams, follow-up his labs, 

and if the patient is getting worse will entertain surgical options. 

ECF No. 1 at 27-28. 

 On November 9, 2012, a “Transfer Summary” report was prepared and signed by HazelKay Yurong, NP and Dr. Ahmed Mahmoud. The report indicates that plaintiff was 

admitted to SJGH on November 8, 2012 and transferred on November 9, 2012.13 The 

SJGH Transfer Summary states: 

Admitting diagnosis: Abdominal pain. 

Discharge diagnosis: Abdominal pain. 

Hospital Course: The patient is a 39-year-old male who presented 

to San Joaquin General Hospital from Mule Creek State Prison on 

November 8, 2012, with a one-day history of nonspecific 

abdominal pain. The patient stated symptoms began after he ate the 

night prior to presentation. Patient claimed his jail mate put bleach 

in his food, which caused the symptoms. The patient denied any 

nausea or vomiting, no change in bowel habits. Denied fever, 

chills. Denied any history of anorexia or loss of appetite. CT scan 

of the abdomen and pelvis was performed on admission. Results 

demonstrated a trace free fluid seen in the right lower at the cecal 

tip. Appendix was not identified. There was no sign of bowel 

obstruction, however, there was a large amount of stool throughout 

the entire colon. 

 

13 Plaintiff disputes that he was discharged on November 9, 2012. According to plaintiff, he 

stayed in the hospital for three days and was not discharged until November 11, 2012. See ECF 

No. 71 at 2-3. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 19 of 28
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 

20

On physical examination, the patient’s abdomen was noted to be 

soft, nondistended, with nonspecific tenderness in the periumbilical 

and lower abdomen. No rebound tenderness or guarding was seen. 

The decision was made to keep the patient NPO and start IV fluids. 

During hospitalization, the patient continued to complain of right 

upper quadrant and left upper quadrant abdominal pain. The patient 

did not experience nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea during 

hospitalization. Throughout hospitalization, the patient remained 

hemodynamically stable. Surgical interventions were deemed 

unnecessary. Upon discharge, the patient was able to tolerate a 

regular diet and denied any abdominal pain. 

Laboratory results demonstrated a normal white blood cell count. 

Dr. Rudas was made aware of patient’s health status and has agreed 

to accept the patient back to Mule Creek State Prison. 

Condition and Disposition: On discharge, the patient is in safe and 

stable condition for discharge.14

 ECF No. 69-7 at 13. 

 Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital without being scheduled for surgery. See ECF 

No. 69-7 at 13; ECF No. 1 at 15. 

 Plaintiff has not had any surgeries since November 8, 2012. ECF No. 69-7 at 32 

(Plaintiff’s Deposition). 

 No doctor has informed plaintiff that he requires surgery since November 8, 2012. ECF 

No. 69-7 at 32 (Plaintiff’s Deposition). 

 Dr. Arthur Dublin is a licensed physician and radiologist. ECF No. 69-4 at 1 (Declaration 

of Arthur Dublin, M.D.) (“Dublin Declr.”). 

 Dr. Dublin declares that he reviewed plaintiff’s CT scan and medical records maintained 

by San Joaquin General Hospital, Diagnostic Imaging Department.15 Dublin Declr. at ¶¶ 

2-3. 

 According to Dr. Dublin, plaintiff’s November 8, 2012 CT scan was normal, with the 

exception of a benign 2 cm cyst of the left kidney. There was no evidence of appendicitis, 

internal trauma, or a splenic laceration. There was no evidence of trauma or injury which 

required plaintiff to undergo surgery.16 Dublin Declr. at ¶¶ 4-7. 

 

14 Plaintiff agrees that Dr. Mahmoud “may have been the doctor that discharged plaintiff,” but 

contends that he was not the doctor who examined plaintiff. ECF No. 71 at 3. 

15 Plaintiff does not dispute that Dr. Dublin reviewed his medical records, but appears to assert 

that defendant Rogero altered plaintiff’s records before Dr. Dublin reviewed them. See ECF No. 

71 at 6-7. 

16 Plaintiff appears to assert that Dr. Dublin concluded plaintiff’s CT scan was normal because 

defendant Rogero changed the CT scan before Dr. Dublin reviewed it. See ECF No. 71 at 6-7. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 20 of 28
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 

21

 Based on Dr. Dublin’s education, training, and experience, as well as his review of 

plaintiff’s CT scan, it is Dr. Dublin’s professional opinion that defendant Rogero’s 

interpretation of plaintiff’s CT scan was medically appropriate, routine, and met the 

standard of care. Dublin Declr. at ¶ 8. 

E. Plaintiff’s Verified Allegations 

 On November 8, 2012, plaintiff experienced excruciating abdominal pain and was rushed 

on an emergency basis from Mule Creek State Prison to an outside hospital where a “cscan x-ray” was taken. ECF No. 1 at 7. 

 After the “c-scan” was taken, nurse Linda Hodges gave plaintiff’s x-ray to defendant 

correctional officer Rodriguez. Id. at 7. 

 Plaintiff was then pushed in a wheelchair in excruciating pain to defendant Dr. Rogero’s 

office, where plaintiff’s x-ray could be read. Id. at 8. 

 Plaintiff was taken into a holding cell less than five feet away from Dr. Rogero’s office. 

The holding cell had a steel door with a slot in the middle for officers to use to talk to 

inmates. Id. at 8. 

 Defendant correctional officers Singh and Rodriguez took plaintiff’s c-scan x-ray into Dr. 

Rogero’s office to be read. 

 Less than ten minutes later, plaintiff heard Dr. Rogero come out of his office and start 

explaining to Rodriguez and Singh what was wrong with plaintiff. Specifically, Dr. 

Rogero said that plaintiff had a lacerated spleen, a bleeding right kidney, and a genital 

wart. Id. at 8. 

 Dr. Rogero said that plaintiff “shouldn’t be like this” and that he was “scheduling 

[plaintiff] for surgery right then.” Id. at 8. 

 Dr. Rogero went back into his office to schedule plaintiff’s surgery date. Id. at 8. 

 Approximately two minutes later, Dr. Rogero walked out of his office and told defendants 

Singh and Rodriguez plaintiff’s surgery date. Id. at 8. 

 Plaintiff heard Rodriguez say, “That’s too soon.” Id. at 8. 

 Dr. Rogero said, “If this guy doesn’t get surgery he could die.” Id. 

 Rodriguez responded, “The reason [plaintiff] is like this is because he is a snitch.” Id. at 

8-9. 

 

Plaintiff asserts that rather than reviewing the medical records provided by defendant Rogero, Dr. 

Dublin should have conducted his own in-person examination of plaintiff and conducted another 

CT scan. See id. at 7-8. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 21 of 28
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 

22

 Rodriguez then told Dr. Rogero that plaintiff has a pending civil lawsuit against some 

correctional officers that will go to trial in April. 

 Rodriguez asked Dr. Rogero to schedule plaintiff’s surgery date sometime in April so that 

plaintiff would be unable to go to trial. Id. at 9. 

 Dr. Rogero went back in to his office. Id. 

 Dr. Rogero returned with another surgery date and defendant Rodriguez again said that 

plaintiff had a pending civil lawsuit against CDCR officers. Id. at 12. 

 Approximately twenty minutes later, Singh and Rodriguez retrieved plaintiff from the 

holding cell. Id. at 10. Plaintiff remained shackled to the wheelchair in excruciating pain. 

Plaintiff asked Rodriguez what the doctor said and Rodriguez responded that he did not 

know. Plaintiff asked Rodriguez why they were going near the elevator and Rodriguez 

said, “Oh, the doctor said you are staying overnight in the hospital to see what is wrong 

with you.” Id. at 10-11. Plaintiff was then taken to a room on a different floor and 

shackled to a hospital bed in excruciating pain. Id. at 11. 

 Twenty minutes later, Dr. Rogero entered plaintiff’s room and said, “What’s the problem” 

– “as [though] he was going to intentionally ignore” the conversation that had taken place 

between Rogero, Rodriguez, and Singh regarding plaintiff’s medical problems. Id. at 12-

13. 

 Plaintiff told Dr. Rogero that he previously had stomach problems from bleach being put 

in his food.17 Rogero asked plaintiff where the pain was. Plaintiff indicated that the pain 

was in the “left spleen area” and the “right kidney area.” Id. at 13. 

 Dr. Rogero started to examine plaintiff, pushing on the left side as plaintiff yelled out in 

pain. Id. Rogero then pressed on plaintiff’s right kidney area and plaintiff again yelled 

out in pain. Id. 

 Dr. Rogero said to plaintiff, “The nurse will be in to ask you medical questions and take 

urine and blood from you.” Id. Rogero then left the room. Id. 

 Approximately ten minutes later, a nurse came into plaintiff’s room. She took blood and 

urine from plaintiff and asked plaintiff medical questions. Id. at 13. Plaintiff explained to 

her that he was in excruciating pain and asked for pain medication. The nurse left and 

returned five minutes later with pain medication. Id. at 13-14. 

 The following day, Dr. Rogero came to plaintiff’s hospital room and asked if plaintiff was 

still in pain. Plaintiff said yes. 

 Plaintiff told Dr. Rogero that he had not eaten in two days and asked if he could 

something to eat. 

 

17 Defendant Rogero maintains that he has never met or spoken with plaintiff. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 22 of 28
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 

23

 Dr. Rogero responded, “No you can’t eat, because you need surgery and if you eat the 

meds we put you to sleep with may make you choke and bring the food up and that may 

kill you.” Id. Defendant then left the room. Id. 

 On the third day, plaintiff was still in the hospital and had not eaten. Id. 

 Dr. Rogero said to plaintiff, “I won’t introduce you to the surgeon.” Id. Rogero then left 

the room. Id. 

 Three minutes later, the surgeon entered the room with Dr. Rogero. 

 Dr. Rogero explained to the surgeon where plaintiff’s pain was. Id. The surgeon said, 

“Ok.” Id. 

 Later that day, correctional officers entered plaintiff’s room and told plaintiff that Dr. 

Rogero had signed a release for plaintiff to return to prison. Id. at 14-15. 

 Plaintiff told the officers he was still in pain. Id. The officers said that plaintiff still had 

to return to prison. Id. 

 Plaintiff alleges that he returned to prison that day “without obtaining adequate medical 

care of that being surgery.” Id. 

 On November 16, 2012, plaintiff was seen by a prison physician for follow up regarding 

his November 8, 2012 hospitalization at SJGH. See ECF No. 71 at 18. The physician 

noted that plaintiff had been “sent to SJGH hospital on 11/8/12 for abdominal pain. 

[Plaintiff] had labs and a CT scan done, which basically showed colon full of stool and 

constipation. [Plaintiff] still complains of persistent pain in the RUQ/RLQ. He says it 

feels like a sharp pain, comes and goes. When it gets bad, it starts to feel really hot and he 

feels a burning sensation going down his RLE all the way down to his toes.” Id. 

Under “assessment,” the progress notes states, “RUQ/RLQ abdominal pain: suspect pt. 

has functional abd pain (IBS) vs. side effect of hyponatremia. Pt. has very atypical 

symptoms and had a very benign CT scan on 11/8/12 at SJGH. Pt. was found to have a 

significant hyponatremia, which was not addressed by the hospital staff, and is likely a 

side effect of the tegretol.” Id. 

 In February 2013, plaintiff filed a health care appeal alleging that on January 28, 2013, a 

nurse found blood in plaintiff’s urine. ECF No. 1 at 44. Plaintiff alleged that he 

continued to experience pain in his kidney and bladder area. See id. at 45. Plaintiff 

alleged that his “stomach” test results came back negative and that that he was told his 

symptoms might indicate irritable bowel syndrome. Plaintiff alleged that he believes the 

results “were intentionally found to be negative” because of the instant lawsuit. See id. at 

46. 

 The responses to plaintiff’s appeal indicate that plaintiff had an ultrasound performed on 

January 30, 2013, which was generally unremarkable. See ECF No. 1 at 51. The appeal 

response further indicates that plaintiff was seen several times in March 2013 for follow 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 23 of 28
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 

24

up regarding plaintiff’s lab tests and chronic stomach pain. See id. None of the appeal 

responses reference an injury to plaintiff’s spleen or kidneys, or a need for surgery. See 

id. at 48-52. 

 In December 2014, plaintiff filed a health care appeal regarding his request for a CT scan 

in connection with his ongoing stomach pain. See ECF No. 71 at 27. The response to 

plaintiff’s appeal indicates that plaintiff had a CT scan of his abdomen on February 19, 

2015 and the results were within normal limits. See ECF No. 71 at 33, 34. 

F. Discussion 

i. Serious Medical Need 

While defendant Rogero argues that plaintiff did not have a serious medical need on 

November 8, 2012, the parties appear to agree that plaintiff was admitted to San Joaquin General 

Hospital on that date for complaints of severe abdominal pain. Plaintiff’s abdominal pain 

constitutes a “serious medical need” within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. See 

McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059-60. Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff did have a serious 

medical need on November 8, 2012. 

However, to the extent plaintiff claims that he had a bleeding kidney and a lacerated 

spleen, this claim is unsupported by the record.18 Plaintiff’s medical records establish that after 

plaintiff was admitted to San Joaquin General Hospital on November 8, 2012, a CT scan of 

plaintiff’s abdomen and pelvic area was performed. Defendant Rogero reviewed plaintiff’s CT 

scan and found that plaintiff’s liver, spleen, adrenals, and kidneys were “unremarkable.” 

Defendant Rogero’s interpretation of plaintiff’s CT scan is supported by the declaration of Dr. 

Arthur Dublin, who also reviewed plaintiff’s November 8, 2012 CT scan. Dr. Dublin found that 

the scan was normal, with the exception of a benign 2cm cyst on the left kidney, and that there 

was no evidence of appendicitis, internal trauma, or a splenic laceration. Furthermore, while 

plaintiff’s “transfer summary” report indicates that plaintiff had “nonspecific tenderness in the 

periumbilical and lower abdomen” and that plaintiff had “continued to complain of right upper 

quadrant and left upper quadrant abdominal pain” during his stay at San Joaquin General 

 

18 While plaintiff alleges that he also had a genital wart, the undersigned does not address this 

allegation herein as it does not appear related to plaintiff’s claim that he required surgery in 

connection with his abdominal pain. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 24 of 28
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 

25

Hospital, there is no suggestion in any of plaintiff’s medical records that plaintiff’s pain was 

caused by a lacerated spleen or bleeding kidney.19

The only evidence supporting plaintiff’s claim that he had a spleen and kidney injury is 

plaintiff’s allegation that he heard defendant Rogero tell defendants Rodriguez and Singh that 

plaintiff had a “bleeding right kidney” and a lacerated spleen. Rogero avers that he never made 

these statements and never met plaintiff or defendants Rodriguez and Singh. Even assuming a 

factual dispute in this regard, however, and assuming Rogero made the disputed statement, that 

would not establish a triable issue as to whether plaintiff actually had either of these conditions. 

In the absence of any medical records suggesting an internal injury to plaintiff’s kidneys or 

spleen, a trier of fact could not reasonably conclude based on Rogero’s statement to defendant 

correctional officers Rodriguez and Singh, that plaintiff did in fact have a bleeding kidney and 

lacerated spleen. This is particularly so in light of Rogero’s finding that plaintiff’s kidneys and 

spleen were “unremarkable” and Dr. Dublin’s finding that plaintiff’s CT scan was normal. To the 

extent plaintiff contends that defendant Rogero altered his report to cover up plaintiff’s real 

injuries, this allegation is purely speculative. Moreover, Dr. Dublin reviewed plaintiff’s original 

CT scan, not just defendant Rogero’s interpretation of the scan, and concluded that the scan 

presented no evidence of internal trauma.20 Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff claims that he had 

a bleeding kidney and lacerated spleen on November 8, 2012, plaintiff’s claim is without merit. 

ii. Deliberate Indifference 

 The court next considers plaintiff’s claim that defendant Rogero was deliberately 

indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs when he failed to schedule plaintiff for surgery. 

 Defendant argues that he did not act with deliberate indifference by failing to schedule 

plaintiff for surgery. Defendant contends that as a radiologist, he did not treat plaintiff beyond 

interpreting plaintiff’s CT scan, and that in any case, plaintiff did not have a condition warranting 

 

19 To the extent plaintiff claims that he felt pain in his “left spleen area” and “right kidney area,” 

plaintiff’s lay opinion does not establish that plaintiff’s pain was caused by a bleeding kidney or 

lacerated spleen. 

20 While plaintiff speculates that defendant Rogero altered the CT scan image before Dr. Dublin 

reviewed it, there is no evidence to support this allegation. There is not even evidence to support 

the notion that Rogero had the ability to alter a patient’s actual scan image. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 25 of 28
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 

26

surgery. Defendant’s claim that plaintiff did not require surgery on November 8, 2012 is 

supported by defendant Rogero’s finding that plaintiff’s liver, spleen, adrenals, and kidneys were 

unremarkable; the November 9, 2012 discharge report stating that “surgical interventions were 

deemed unnecessary;” and Dr. Dublin’s expert opinion that plaintiff’s CT scan presented no 

evidence of appendicitis, splenic laceration, or internal trauma or injury requiring surgery. In 

light of this evidence, the undersigned finds that defendant has met his burden of establishing an 

absence of evidence supporting plaintiff’s claim that plaintiff required surgery on November 8, 

2012 and that defendant acted with deliberate indifference by failing to schedule plaintiff for 

surgery. Accordingly, the burden shifts to plaintiff as the non-moving party “to establish that a 

genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist.” 

Plaintiff submitted a number of medical records in support of his claim against defendant 

Rogero. The only document that references a potential need for surgery is a report authored by 

Dr. Samarkandy on November 8, 2012, after plaintiff’s CT scan had been completed. In 

reference to plaintiff’s abdominal pain, Dr. Samarkandy wrote: “Will observe . . . patient 

clinically with serial abdominal exams, follow-up his labs, and if the patient is getting worse will 

entertain surgical options.” However, the following day, Dr. Mahmoud wrote in a “transfer 

summary” report that “surgical interventions were deemed unnecessary.” Accordingly, these 

medical records do not support plaintiff’s claim that plaintiff required surgery. 

Plaintiff also submitted a progress note written by prison physician Dr. Tseng on 

November 16, 2012, regarding a follow up on plaintiff’s November 8, 2012 hospitalization. Dr. 

Tseng’s report states plaintiff “had labs and a CT scan done [at San Joaquin General Hospital on 

November 8, 2012], which basically only showed a colon full of stool and constipation.” ECF 

No. 71 at 18. Dr. Tseng noted that plaintiff continued to complain of abdominal pain, and that 

Dr. Tseng suspected that plaintiff had IBS.21 While this report supports plaintiff’s claim that he 

continued to suffer abdominal pain upon his return to prison, the report contains no indication that 

plaintiff’s pain warranted surgery. 

 

21 Dr. Tseng appears to be referring to irritable bowel syndrome. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 26 of 28
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 

27

Plaintiff also submitted copies of health care appeals in which he complains of continued 

abdominal pain and alleges that he began seeing blood in his urine and/or stool in January 2013. 

However, in the absence of any evidence suggesting that these symptoms show that plaintiff 

required surgery, these allegations do not establish a dispute of fact as to whether plaintiff 

required surgery on November 8, 2012. 

In short, there is no medical evidence that plaintiff required surgery on November 8, 2012. 

While plaintiff repeatedly asserts that he heard defendant Rogero tell defendants Rodriguez and 

Singh that plaintiff needed surgery, plaintiff’s alleged need for surgery is wholly unsupported by 

his medical records. In the absence of any records suggesting that plaintiff required surgery, and 

in light of Dr. Dublin’s expert opinion that plaintiff did not have internal injuries warranting 

surgery and Dr. Mahmoud’s report indicating that surgical interventions were deemed 

unnecessary, a trier of fact could not reasonably conclude, based solely on Rogero’s alleged 

statement to defendants Rodriguez and Singh, that plaintiff required surgery. 

On this record, there is no basis for a trier of fact to conclude that defendant Rogero was 

deliberately different to plaintiff’s serious medical needs when he failed to schedule plaintiff for 

surgery in connection with his abdominal pain.22 Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment should be granted. 

VII. Conclusion 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s objections (ECF Nos. 84 and 87) to defendant Rogero’s responses to the 

court’s September 30, 2015 order are overruled; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel interrogatories from defendant Rodriguez (ECF No. 85) 

is denied; 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide plaintiff with a new subpoena form, 

blank but signed by the Clerk of the Court. 

 

22 To the extent plaintiff claims that he required surgery due to a bleeding kidney and lacerated 

spleen, the court rejects this argument in light of the court’s finding that plaintiff did not have a 

bleeding kidney or lacerated spleen on November 8, 2012. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 27 of 28
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 

28

4. Plaintiff’s request for a subpoena duces tecum as to San Joaquin General Hospital 

(ECF No. 44) is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted to the extent that 

plaintiff shall be permitted to subpoena from San Joaquin General Hospital (1) any 

extant security video footage of plaintiff shackled to a hospital bed in San Joaquin 

General Hospital for two or more days beginning on November 8, 2012; and (2) 

copies of any hospital rules or memoranda that were in effect in November 2012 

governing CDCR prisoners being held at San Joaquin General Hospital during a 

medical stay. Discovery shall be reopened for the limited purpose of allowing 

plaintiff to serve the instant subpoena. Plaintiff’s subpoena form must be returned to 

the court within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff’s request for a subpoena as to San Joaquin 

General Hospital is in all other respects denied. 

5. Plaintiff’s request for a subpoena duces tecum as to Mule Creek State Prison (ECF No. 

53) is denied; and 

6. Plaintiff’s request for a subpoena duces tecum as to Kern Valley State Prison (ECF 

No. 57) is denied. 

 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 

 Defendant Rogero’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 69) be granted. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Any response to the objections shall be 

filed and served within 14 days after service of the objections. 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: March 31, 2016 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 89 Filed 03/31/16 Page 28 of 28