Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00353/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00353-14/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 The case was erroneously closed after entry of judgment in favor of Defendants Rees and Pappenfus; 1

however, the Clerk thereafter reopened the case.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THADDEUS JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. PAPPENFUS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-0353-AWI-DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT

RODRIGUEZ’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT BE GRANTED

(Doc. 36)

I. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff is state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s complaint filed March 16, 2005, against defendant

MTA Rodriguez for acting with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s medical needs, in violation of

the Eighth Amendment. On February 15, 2007, the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii issued an order

adopting the undersigned’s recommendation to grant Defendants Rees and Pappenfus’ motion to

dismiss. On February 15, 2007, the clerk entered judgment in favor of Defendants Rees and

Pappenfus. Still pending is Defendant Rodriguez’ motion for summary judgment, filed September 1

22, 2006, to which plaintiff has not responded. 

B. Legal Standard

Case 1:05-cv-00353-AWI-DLB Document 42 Filed 04/04/08 Page 1 of 8
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

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 judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(c). Under summary judgment practice, the moving party 

[A]lways 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 (1986). “[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.

Id. 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, as set forth in Rule 56(c), 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. 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 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. Rule 56(e); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586

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, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477

U.S. 242, 248 (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, Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 1436

(9th Cir. 1987).

Case 1:05-cv-00353-AWI-DLB Document 42 Filed 04/04/08 Page 2 of 8
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

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 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 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) advisory committee’s note on 1963

amendments).

In resolving the summary judgment motion, the Court examines the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any. Rule 56(c).

The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, and all reasonable

inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the Court must be drawn in favor of the

opposing party, Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655

(1962) (per curiam). Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the opposing

party's obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. 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).

C. Undisputed Facts

1. At all times relevant to plaintiff’s claims, he was incarcerated within the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and housed at Avenal State Prison.

2. X-ray of plaintiff’s left femur taken 7/11/03 showed old healed distal shaft of the femur with

internal fixation.

3. X-ray of plaintiff’s lumbar spine taken 7/11/03 showed mild change of degenerative disc

disease of L5-S1.

4. On July 16, 2003, plaintiff was seen by Dr. Perry for old injury to his left leg. Plaintiff

Case 1:05-cv-00353-AWI-DLB Document 42 Filed 04/04/08 Page 3 of 8
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

complained of back pain secondary to leg length difference. Plaintiff had an IM

(Intramedullary) rod in the left femur. Assessment was left leg pain. Plaintiff was

subscribed a brace.

5. On September 2, 2003, the medical records reflect plaintiff was seen in the medical clinic

but left voluntarily before seeing the doctor.

6. On October 6, 2003, plaintiff was seen by Dr. Weed complaining that the leg brace was the

wrong size. Plaintiff was referred back to Dr. Perry for evaluation.

7. On November 25, 2003, plaintiff presented to Dr. Rees for chrono update for soft shoes and

limited duty. Dr. Rees noted plaintiff had an IM rod in the left femur. Dr. Rees referred

plaintiff for a neurology consultation for myleogram and nerve conduction studies to

determine etiology of complaints of back and leg pain. Dr. Rees renewed plaintiff’s chrono

for soft shoes and limited duty. He prescribed Tylenol and Flexeril for pain complaints.

8. The Medical Authorization Review Board must authorize referral to a specialist.

9. On December 7, 2003, plaintiff presented to the clinic reporting pain on and off for 2 years.

10. On December 14, 2003, plaintiff reported that he had a dizzy spell and sustained a laceration

to the bridge of his nose. Plaintiff was seen by a medical doctor who noted a 1cm laceration

over the bridge of his nose. Plaintiff was prescribed Atenol and told to return or follow up

in one week.

11. On December 26, 2003, plaintiff presented to the clinic with complaints of constipation.

Plaintiff was given Maalox.

12. On February 4, 2004, plaintiff presented to the clinic with complaints of leg pain. Plaintiff

was evaluated by Dr. Pappenfus who recommended a cane and prescribed Tylenol and a 3

day lay in. Dr. Pappenfus also recommended follow-up with a neurologist.

13. On February 4, 2004, MTA Rodriguez noted during the lunch release that plaintiff was

ambulating without any noticeable limp or deformity.

14. Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Pappenfus on February 19, 2004 who noted that plaintiff

complained of left leg pain and back pain and was requesting Naprosyn. After examining

plaintiff, Dr. Pappenfus prescribed Tylenol for pain. Dr. Pappenfus then prepared an

Case 1:05-cv-00353-AWI-DLB Document 42 Filed 04/04/08 Page 4 of 8
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

addendum to his February 19, 2004 report in which he states, “observed walking away -

again has no problem with ambulation - impression malingering.”

15. Plaintiff is obese. In November 2003, he weighed 254 lbs.

16. Dr. Rees opines that plaintiff’s back pain could be the result of excess weight, the rod in his

femur or back complaints associated with sciatica.

17. Plaintiff was referred to a neurologist and orthopedist to determine the etiology of his

complaints. He was prescribed pain medication. Defendants contend plaintiff’s treatment

was appropriate and consistent with community standards. 

18. Plaintiff’s medical records do not indicate that plaintiff was ever denied or refused treatment

by TA Rodriguez. The medical records indicate that plaintiff was seen for his complaints

on multiple occasions.

19. Defendants served written discovery on plaintiff requesting that he provide all facts that

support his contention that MTA Rodriguez violated his civil or constitutional rights and that

he sustained injury as a result. Defendants also requested the identification of documents

which support plaintiff’s allegations.

20. Plaintiff failed to respond to the discovery.

D. Discussion

Plaintiff claims that he has a rod in his left femur and requires use of a cane since suffering

a fall in December 2004. Plaintiff also claims he has neck and back complaints and was referred to

a neurologist for those complaints. Plaintiff contends MTA Rodriguez was deliberately indifferent

to his medical needs. 

Defendant argues he is entitled to summary adjudication on Plaintiff’s claim against him

because there is no evidence that he was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s medical needs.

Defendant argues that plaintiff has failed to present any evidence supporting his claims and as a

result, defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Defendant argues that

plaintiff was given the appropriate diagnosis and treatment and at no time did he refuse to provide

medical treatment to Plaintiff. Defendant relies on the evidence in plaintiff’s medical record to argue

that plaintiff was seen for his complaints on numerous occasions and was provided treatment. DUF

Case 1:05-cv-00353-AWI-DLB Document 42 Filed 04/04/08 Page 5 of 8
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

2-17. 

The Court finds that Defendant Rodriguez has met his initial burden of informing the Court

of the basis for his motion, and identifying those portions of the record which he believes

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. The burden therefore shifts to Plaintiff

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). As stated above, in attempting to

establish the existence of this factual dispute, Plaintiff may not rely upon the mere allegations or

denials of his 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. Rule 56(e);

Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11; First Nat'l Bank, 391 U.S. at 289; Strong v. France, 474 F.2d 747,

749 (9th Cir. 1973).

To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison

conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452

U.S. 337, 347 (1981). A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care does not rise to the level of an

Eighth Amendment violation unless (1) “the prison official deprived the prisoner of the ‘minimal

civilized measure of life’s necessities,’” and (2) “the prison official ‘acted with deliberate

indifference in doing so.’” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Hallett

v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). A prison official does not act in

a deliberately indifferent manner unless the official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to

inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). 

Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss. Although the allegations

in Plaintiff’s complaint were sufficient to state a claim for relief under federal notice pleading

standards, at this stage in the litigation, Plaintiff must come forth with evidence in support of his

claims. Plaintiff has not done so.

“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060

(9th Cir. 2004). “Under this standard, the prison official must not only ‘be aware of the facts from

which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,’ but that person

‘must also draw the inference.’” Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). “‘If a prison official

Case 1:05-cv-00353-AWI-DLB Document 42 Filed 04/04/08 Page 6 of 8
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

should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth

Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.’” Id. (quoting Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada,

290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)).

Plaintiff’s mere allegations in the complaint that “Defendants were aware of the plaintiff’s

medical needs “ and “Defendants will not treat plaintiff nor have the defendants honored the Director

Level Response ordering that the plaintiff be seen by the neurologist ” are insufficient at this stage

to defeat Defendant’s motion. In his complaint, plaintiff states that he will submit evidence when

discovery is ordered by the Court. However, discovery closed on December 12, 2006 and plaintiff

has failed to submit any evidence whatsoever. Indeed, the Court has reviewed the record supplied

by Defendant and finds no evidence supporting Plaintiff’s claims that he denied medical treatment

or that Defendant Rodriguez “[knew] of and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to [plaintiff’s] health

or safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Accordingly, Defendant Rodriguez is entitled to judgment as

a matter of law on Plaintiff’s claim against him.

D. Conclusion

Forthe foregoing reasons, theCourtfinds that Plaintiff has not met his burden of setting forth

admissible evidence raising triable issues of material fact, and Defendant Rodriguez is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law on the claims against them. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is

HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed September 22, 2006, be

GRANTED, thus concluding this action in its entirety; and

2. The Clerk of the Court enter judgment for Defendant and against Plaintiff.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised 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).

Case 1:05-cv-00353-AWI-DLB Document 42 Filed 04/04/08 Page 7 of 8
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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 4, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNI j8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00353-AWI-DLB Document 42 Filed 04/04/08 Page 8 of 8