Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01846/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01846-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 These matters were determined to be suitable for decision

without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

2 Although the caption the movants used indicates the

existence of “Doe” defendants in this action, the “Doe” defendants

were dismissed in an Order filed November 25, 2003.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUSTIN LANE, ) CIV S-03-1846 GEB CMK

)

Plaintiff, ) ORDER1

)

v. )

)

COUNTY OF BUTTE, BUTTE )

COUNTY SHERIFF MACKENZIE, )

an individual;2 )

)

Defendants. )

)

Defendants County of Butte and Butte County Sheriff

Mackenzie seek summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff did

not file an opposition to Defendants’ motion but instead sought to

continue the scheduled hearing date. For the stated reasons,

Plaintiff’s request is denied and Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment is granted.

REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE

On April 8, 2005, Plaintiff filed an ex parte request for

additional time to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment

Case 2:03-cv-01846-GEB-CMK Document 32 Filed 04/21/05 Page 1 of 11
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

which was scheduled to be heard on April 18, 2005. Plaintiff filed

this request four days after his opposition to the motion was due. 

However, even if Plaintiff had filed the request on the date the

opposition was due, “Requests for Court-approved extensions brought on

the required filing date for the pleading or other document are looked

upon with disfavor.” L.R. 6-144(d). Plaintiff’s ex parte request

also failed to comply with Local Rule 6-144(c) since the request was

not supported by an affidavit of counsel.

Furthermore, the Rule 16 Scheduling Order states that “The

last hearing date for motions shall be April 18, 2005, at 9 a.m.” 

Plaintiff’s request for additional time to respond to Defendants’

motion would require a continuance of the last prescribed Rule 16 law

and motion hearing date and therefore effectively sought an amendment

of the Scheduling Order. Although Plaintiff’s request for additional

time did not specifically request to modify the Scheduling Order, the

request may be deemed “a de facto motion to amend” the Scheduling

Order. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th

Cir. 1992).

A Rule 16 Scheduling Order “shall not be modified except

upon a showing of good cause . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Since

Plaintiff’s only stated reason supporting his extension request was

that his attorney committed an oversight by inadvertently failing to

timely file an opposition, Plaintiff has not shown good cause to amend 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01846-GEB-CMK Document 32 Filed 04/21/05 Page 2 of 11
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 Plaintiff’s application for an extension indicates that

Plaintiff failed to carefully read the Rule 16 Scheduling Order. Not

only did Plaintiff fail to timely file an opposition, but Plaintiff

also indicated in his application that he will be on vacation at the

time of the scheduled Final Pretrial Conference, even though the Order

prescribes trial counsel is required to attend the Final Pretrial

Conference.

3

the Scheduling Order.3 Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for additional

time to respond to Defendants’ motion is denied.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and admissions on file show

that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). In

considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must examine all

evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, and draw all

reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. Matsushita Elec. Indus.

Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citations

omitted). 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.’” Id. (quoting Advisory Committee Note to

1963 Amendment of Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(e), 28 U.S.C. App., p.626).

Even in the absence of an opposition to a summary judgment

motion, it must be determined whether the unopposed motion

successfully demonstrates no genuine issues of material fact exist

that prevent granting the motion. See generally, Martinez v.

Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2003).

Plaintiff’s complaint seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

for an alleged violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment

Case 2:03-cv-01846-GEB-CMK Document 32 Filed 04/21/05 Page 3 of 11
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 The facts are set forth in the movants’ Statement of

Undisputed Facts filed on March 21, 2005, and are supported by the

deposition of Plaintiff Justin Lane, and declarations of Don Durett,

Gregory Einhorn, and Defendant Scott Mackenzie, as required by Local

Rule 56-260. 

4

constitutional right based on Defendants’ deliberate indifference

toward his medical needs while Plaintiff was incarcerated. In the

parties’ Joint Status Report, Plaintiff’s counsel summarized

Plaintiff’s claims as a “violation of [Plaintiff’s] constitutional

rights due to the jail’s indifference towards Plaintiff’s medical

needs which resulted in Plaintiff swallowing razors on three occasions

while incarcerated.” (Pl.’s Joint Status Report filed Nov. 20, 2003,

at 1-2.) 

The undisputed facts are as follows:4

1. Plaintiff Justin Lane was arrested in late November of

2002 on charges of forgery and grand theft, and booked into the Butte

County Jail on November 26, 2002.

2. During the entire time of his incarceration, while at

the Butte County Jail, Mr. Lane received medical services from the

staff of the California Forensic Medical Group (CFMG), which contracts

with the County of Butte to provide medical services for and to

inmates housed in the Butte County Jail.

3. The persons providing medical services to Mr. Lane were

all employees of CFMG, not the employees of the County of Butte. No

Butte County employee provided any medical services to Mr. Lane while

he was incarcerated, including Scott Mackenzie.

4. At the time of his booking, on November 26, 2002, a

psychiatric assessment was undertaken of Mr. Lane by nurse Debbie 

Case 2:03-cv-01846-GEB-CMK Document 32 Filed 04/21/05 Page 4 of 11
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

Pautch, a CFMG employee. Mr. Lane was determined by nurse Pautch not

to be at risk to himself and not suicidal.

5. On November 26, 2002, Mr. Lane signed a release for his

Butte County Department of Behavioral Health records. The records were

received via fax and reviewed on November 27, 2002. The most recent

entry therein is September 20, 2002, where it is noted that Mr. Lane 

denies suicidal thoughts.

6. While he stated he was not suicidal when asked

specifically by the medical staff of CFMG, in fact, he was suicidal.

7. After his booking, Mr. Lane asked to be assigned to a

particular pod or section (A-pod) for protective custody; his request

was granted and he was so assigned.

8. On November 28, 2002, without announcement or statement

to any correctional staff, while in his A-pod cell, Mr. Lane swallowed

a portion of an electric razor head because “he was suicidal at the

time.”

9. After Mr. Lane swallowed the razor head, he waited

approximately 15 minutes and pressed the intercom to let an unknown

and unidentified correctional officer know what Mr. Lane had done; Mr.

Lane notified the correctional officer because he was afraid he “just

might die.”

10. Immediately after reporting this, additional officers

responded, entered the cell, confiscated the rest of the razor

head and called the medical staff.

11. Mr. Lane was transported to Oroville Medical Facility,

a comprehensive hospital located in Oroville, California, and

examined, all within 45 minutes.

Case 2:03-cv-01846-GEB-CMK Document 32 Filed 04/21/05 Page 5 of 11
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

12. Mr. Lane did not object to the Oroville Medical

Hospital’s attempts to remove the foreign object from him. Oroville

Hospital medical personnel were unable to arthroscopically obtain the

blade. Therefore it passed through him without any physical effects.

Specifically, the foreign object was passed through his feces without

incident on December 2, 2002.

13. Upon his return to Butte County Jail on December 1,

2002, Mr. Lane was placed on “suicide watch.”

14. An inmate determined to be at potential risk to himself

is placed on suicide watch. An inmate on suicide watch is housed in a

single cell for his or her own protection. The inmate is provided

with special clothing that cannot be used to harm himself or herself

and is visually checked every 15 minutes.

15. Mr. Lane remained on suicide watch until December 3,

2002. On that date, Mr. Lane was personally seen (via video

conference) by CFMG psychiatrist Dr. Blatt. Dr. Blatt is not an

employee of the County of Butte. Dr. Blatt’s medical judgment as he

applied it to Mr. Lane was not influenced or directed by the County of

Butte.

16. Mr. Lane told Dr. Blatt that he was not suicidal and

was not depressed. In Dr. Blatt’s opinion, Mr. Lane was “not depressed

but rather tried to organize his life in custody by showing staff how

serious he was about his housing. The patient is not suicidal in my

opinion and will be released from the safety cell.”

17. Mr. Lane has testified inconsistently regarding the

veracity of his statements to Dr. Blatt. Initially, Mr. Lane testified

that he agreed with Dr. Blatt’s opinion that on December 3, 2002, he

was not suicidal.

Case 2:03-cv-01846-GEB-CMK Document 32 Filed 04/21/05 Page 6 of 11
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

18. Subsequently, Mr. Lane testified that he remained

suicidal but lied to staff when he said he was not.

19. At the time Mr. Lane was taken off of suicide watch on

December 3, 2002, Mr. Lane was taking psychiatric medication for

depression once a day and was not requesting additional medication. 

20. After being taken off of suicide watch, Mr. Lane was

moved from A-pod to F-pod. 

21. At Mr. Lane’s request, he was subsequently moved from

F-pod to G-pod; then later from G-pod to P-pod.

22. Nurse Pautch performed a suicide evaluation on December

7, 2002, and determined that Mr. Lane was not a danger to himself. Mr.

Lane told her: “No. I’m not going to hurt myself; I won’t hurt other

inmates or correctional officers.”

23. On December 11, 2002, Dr. Levin, also a psychiatrist

employed by CFMG, examined Mr. Lane and determined that Mr. Lane

denied suicide ideation and was, instead, displeased about housing.

Mr. Lane reported to Dr. Levin that he wanted to go to G-pod.

24. Dr. Levin agreed with Dr. Blatt that Mr. Lane was not

suicidal or otherwise was a danger to himself.

25. On December 19, 2002, Mr. Lane, without notice to any

staff, broke some disposable razors and swallowed some of the blades

contained therein. Mr. Lane’s deposition testimony reveals that the

number of razor blades swallowed was either two, four or approximately

four to six.

26. Within minutes after ingesting the foreign objects on

December 19, 2002, Mr. Lane reported this to an unknown floor officer

who was making the rounds.

Case 2:03-cv-01846-GEB-CMK Document 32 Filed 04/21/05 Page 7 of 11
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

27. The officer responded by informing the sergeant; Mr.

Lane was subsequently transferred to Oroville Medical Facility.

28. Mr. Lane also testified that he swallowed Tylenol along

with the razor blades; however, blood tests did not reveal the

ingestion of Tylenol as claimed.

29. Mr. Lane asked for and provided consent for laproscopic

surgery and the razor blades were then removed by laproscopic surgery.

30. Mr. Lane testified at his deposition that he still has

some stomach pain from the surgery although “that’s about all.”

31. At the time Mr. Lane swallowed these foreign objects,

he had been off of suicide watch for two weeks and had been seen in

the interim by nurse Pautch and psychiatrist Dr. Levin. Mr. Lane had

also been moved pursuant to his request from F-pod to G-pod and from

G-pod to P-pod during that time.

32. Mr. Lane had been taking his psychiatric medicine on a

daily basis while in A-pod, F-pod, G-pod and P-pod.

33. Mr. Lane remained at Oroville Medical Facility until

December 25, 2002, when he was re-housed at the Butte County Jail.

34. After the surgery and while still in the hospital, Mr.

Lane states that he went into the bathroom in his hospital room

and ate pieces of a lightbulb and part of an aluminum seven-up can.

These were passed without any physical effect.

35. From the time Mr. Lane was transported back to the

Butte County Jail from Oroville Hospital he was on suicide watch

continuously. 

36. On January 1, 2003, Mr. Lane found razor blades hidden

underneath a toilet in the cell in which he was housed. He ingested 

Case 2:03-cv-01846-GEB-CMK Document 32 Filed 04/21/05 Page 8 of 11
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

these blades. He was not treated for this, save for an x-ray. The

blades were passed without incident.

37. After Mr. Lane’s release from Butte County Jail, he was

transported to Mule Creek Prison. While at Mule Creek Prison, on two

occasions in 2003, Mr. Lane swallowed muscle relaxers, Tylenol,

codeine and razor blades. He was treated arthroscopically in both

instances.

38. In December of 2004, while incarcerated at the

Vacaville Medical Facility, Mr. Lane swallowed six razor blades with

other medication. Those razor blades also passed.

39. At no time did Scott Mackenzie personally participate

in any way in the provision of medical services to Mr. Lane, nor did

he personally participate in any observation of Mr. Lane when he was

an inmate.

 Defendants rely on the undisputed facts in support of their

position that they did not violate Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment

substantive due process right. Defendants contend there was no

constitutional violation since “there is no evidence that anyone . . .

was deliberately indifferent to any serious medical need.” (Defs.’

Mot. for Summ. J. at 10.) According to Defendants, “Plaintiff not

only did not ask for help, he denied it; moreover, he was repeatedly

evaluated by psychiatric professionals who had reviewed his medical

history and was receiving psychiatric medication.” (Id. at 10.) 

Furthermore, Defendants assert there was only one potentially serious

medical need, which stemmed from a self-inflicted injury on

December 19, 2002, and that Defendants did not act with deliberate 

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01846-GEB-CMK Document 32 Filed 04/21/05 Page 9 of 11
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 Defendants assert that “The other incidents of plaintiff’s

intentional ingestion of foreign objects do not equate to serious

medical needs because they were ‘treated’ by simply allowing the

objects to pass harmlessly through the system.” (Defs.’ Mot. for

Summ. J. at 9.)

10

indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs as a result of that

incident.5 (Id. at 9.)

“A prison official’s ‘deliberate indifference’ to a

substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate violates the Eighth

Amendment.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994). 

It is not, however, every injury suffered by one

prisoner at the hands of another that translates

into constitutional liability for prison officials

responsible for the victim's safety. . . . [A]

prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only

when two requirements are met. First, the

deprivation alleged must be, objectively,

‘sufficiently serious,’; a prison official's act

or omission must result in the denial of ‘the

minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.’ 

For a claim (like the one here) based on a failure

to prevent harm, the inmate must show that he is

incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial

risk of serious harm.

Id. at 834 (citations omitted). “With deliberate indifference lying

somewhere between the poles of negligence at one end and purpose or

knowledge at the other, the Courts of Appeals have routinely equated

deliberate indifference with recklessness.” Id. at 835. The

“deliberate indifference” standard also applies to claims by pretrial

detainees who are protected by the substantive due process clause of

the Fourteenth Amendment. Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d

1435, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[Plaintiff’s] status as a pre-trial

detainee who may not be punished, therefore, does not preclude

application of the standard. We do not find it inappropriate that the 

Case 2:03-cv-01846-GEB-CMK Document 32 Filed 04/21/05 Page 10 of 11
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

same standard may be used under the fourteenth and eighth

amendments.”).

Since the undisputed facts reveal that there is no genuine

issue of material fact regarding Defendants’ deliberate indifference

to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs, Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment is granted. Therefore, the Clerk of the Court shall enter

judgment in favor of Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-01846-GEB-CMK Document 32 Filed 04/21/05 Page 11 of 11