Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02154/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02154-23/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD KIMBRO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIRANDA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-2154 MCE KJN P

ORDER

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 Rule 302. On 

February 24, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations herein 

(ECF No. 99), which were served on all parties and which contained notice that any 

objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. 

Both Plaintiff and Defendants filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 

the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 

entire file, the Court finds that, with the exception of its analysis of Defendant Miranda, 

the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

For the reasons that follow, the Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED AS 

Case 2:12-cv-02154-MCE-KJN Document 102 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 4
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

MODIFIED by this Order.

Plaintiff underwent kidney surgery on July 9, 2008.1 Although Plaintiff received 

prescriptions for pain medication and antibiotics after the operation, those prescriptions 

were set to expire on or shortly after August 18, 2008—the day Plaintiff was scheduled 

to have surgery on his other kidney. The second surgery, however, did not occur on 

August 18. Concerned that he would be without his medications, beginning on August 

14, Plaintiff filed several health care service requests forms. Despite his attempts to 

have his prescriptions refilled, Plaintiff went without some of the medications between 

August 18 and September 9. 

Although Plaintiff submitted multiple health care service request forms about his 

expiring prescriptions, Defendant Miranda (a physician’s assistant) did not learn of the 

issue until August 28, 2008. On August 28, Miranda refilled Plaintiff’s prescription for 

Tramadol without actually meeting with Plaintiff. On August 30, Miranda refilled 

Plaintiff’s prescription for Morphine and discontinued the prescription for 

Phenazopyridine. When Miranda finally met with Plaintiff on September 9, Plaintiff 

indicated that he still had not received the Tramadol because it was non-formulary. 

Miranda then completed a “non-formulary request form” to activate the Tramadol 

prescription, cancelled the Morphine prescription, and prescribed Tylenol with Codeine 

and Pyridium for ten days.

The Findings and Recommendations suggest that the Court deny Miranda’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment because “the record demonstrates that plaintiff received 

no medication for the pain associated with his kidney problems between August 29, 

2008 and September 5, 2008.” ECF No. 99 at 14. The Findings and Recommendations

specifically fault Miranda for renewing the non-formulary Tramadol, twice noting that 

Miranda “should have known that plaintiff would have to wait to receive Tramadol.” Id. at 

13, 14. 

 1

 The Court finds no error in the statement of facts in the Findings and Recommendations. The 

following summary is included in this Order only for clarity of analysis. 

Case 2:12-cv-02154-MCE-KJN Document 102 Filed 04/29/15 Page 2 of 4
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

But even if Miranda should have anticipated the delay in the administration of 

Tramadol—an inference without evidentiary support—no rational trier of fact examining

the record as a whole could find that Miranda acted with deliberate indifference to 

Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 

475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (“Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational 

trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.’”). Of 

particular relevance are the following undisputed facts: Miranda renewed the 

prescription for the Tramadol on August 28, the very day that he learned of its expiration; 

on August 30, Miranda renewed the prescription for Morphine; and, when he finally met 

with Plaintiff on September 9, Miranda cancelled the morphine prescription and 

prescribed Tylenol with Codeine and Pyridium. 

Plaintiff’s frustration is certainly understandable: Despite submitting several 

health care service request forms before his prescriptions even expired, the medical staff 

failed to timely renew Plaintiff’s prescriptions and he went several consecutive days 

without pain medication and antibiotics. Nevertheless, deliberate indifference “focuses 

on the duties and responsibilities of . . . individual defendants,” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 

628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988), and is a “high legal standard,” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 

1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). While Miranda could have taken additional precautions, a 

rational trier of fact examining the record as a whole could not find that his failure to do 

so amounted to deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 24, 2015 (ECF No. 

99) are ADOPTED AS MODIFIED by this Order; 

2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 85) is GRANTED

IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED as to

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Miranda and Defendant Hougland, as well as the

exposure-to-the-elements claim against Defendants Kelly, Leone, McBride, and Morris. 

However, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Clark 

Case 2:12-cv-02154-MCE-KJN Document 102 Filed 04/29/15 Page 3 of 4
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

and the excessive force claim against Defendants Leone and Morris.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to dismiss Defendant Miranda, 

McBride, and Kelly from this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2015

Case 2:12-cv-02154-MCE-KJN Document 102 Filed 04/29/15 Page 4 of 4