Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01811/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01811-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN E. JAMES, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

DONALD C. POMPAN, M.D., ET AL., 

Defendants.

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-1811 JSW (PR)

ORDER SERVING DELIBERATE

INDIFFERENCE CLAIM AND

DENYING AS MOOT MOTION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

(Docket no. 3)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California currently incarcerated at Calipatria

State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. In an order dated July

28, 2004, Magistrate Judge Beck granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In

an order dated February 17, 2005, Magistrate Judge Beck found that Plaintiff stated

cognizable claims for relief against Defendants at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) for

deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. Because SVSP is located in

the Northern District, Magistrate Judge Beck recommended transfer of the complaint. 

On April 20, 2005, Judge Ishi adopted the findings and recommendations in full. The

case was received in this district on May 2, 2005. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Plaintiff complains about the medical treatment he received while incarcerated at

SVSP in 2002. Because Judge Ishi adopted Magistrate Judge Beck's findings and

recommendations that Plaintiff's allegations state a cognizable claim for relief, the Court

Case 3:05-cv-01811-JSW Document 5 Filed 12/23/05 Page 1 of 7
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

repeats the facts as found by Magistrate Judge Beck.

Plaintiff brings this action against Dr. Pompan, Dr. Bowman, Dr. Helmer, Dr.

Thor, M. Golin, correctional officer Burn, correctional officer Fernandez, correctional

officer Hernandez and correctional lieutenant Rankin, of SVSP. Plaintiff was transferred

from Pleasant Valley State Prison to SVSP in January of 2002. Plaintiff was treated for a

dislocated shoulder in March of 2002. On July 23, 2002, Dr. Pompan performed surgery

on Plaintiff's shoulder. Plaintiff's shoulder was to remain elevated and immobilized for a

week, Plaintiff was prescribed Vicodin for pain, and follow-up physical therapy was

recommended. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant correctional lieutenant Burns was

responsible for ensuring that he received post-operative care at SVSP. When Plaintiff

was returned to his cell on July 23, 2002, the same day as the surgery, his surgical wound

began bleeding and he experienced pain. After some delay, Defendant correctional

officers Fernandez and Hernandez responded to Plaintiff's calls for help and took him to

the prison infirmary in a wheelchair. Plaintiff alleges that at the infirmary, medical staff

refused to provide post-surgical medical treatment, specifically, they refused to take

measures to stop Plaintiff's bleeding, provide dressing for the surgical wound, or provide

Plaintiff with prescribed pain medication. Plaintiff does not name the individual medical

staff who allegedly refused to provide this medical treatment. Plaintiff alleges that

Defendant correctional lieutenant Rankin knew that he had not received medical care, yet

ordered Plaintiff to be returned to his cell. Plaintiff alleges Drs. Helmer and Bowman

were both notified and did nothing.

On July 24 and 25, 2002, Plaintiff again sought medical attention from

unidentified staff at SVSP for his bleeding and pain, without result. On July 26, 2002,

unidentified medical staff provided Plaintiff with Tylenol 3 for pain, which Plaintiff

claims was insufficient to control the pain. On July 27, 28, and 30, 2002, Plaintiff sought

medical care for continued bleeding, a sterile dressing for his surgical wound, and pain

Case 3:05-cv-01811-JSW Document 5 Filed 12/23/05 Page 2 of 7
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

medication, "all without result." On August 6, 2002, Plaintiff sought and received a

sterile dressing of the surgical wound from medical staff. Also on August 6, 2002, and

every two weeks thereafter, Plaintiff requested physical therapy, as this was part of his

post-surgical treatment plan. Plaintiff alleges that Drs. Pompan, Thor, Posner, Bowman

and Helmer were responsible for seeing that he received post-surgical treatment and

physical therapy at SVSP.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be

liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: 

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state

law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

ANALYSIS

The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials take reasonable measures to

guarantee the safety of prisoners. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). 

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment's

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,

104 (1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other

grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en

Case 3:05-cv-01811-JSW Document 5 Filed 12/23/05 Page 3 of 7
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

banc); Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986). A determination of

"deliberate indifference" involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the

prisoner's medical need and the nature of the defendant's response to that need. See

McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059.

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." Id.

(citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104). The existence of an injury that a reasonable

doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or treatment; the presence

of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's daily activities; or the

existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples of indications that a prisoner has a

"serious" need for medical treatment. See id. at 1059-60 (citing Wood v. Housewright,

900 F.2d 1332, 1337-41 (9th Cir. 1990)).

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a

substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable

steps to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). In order for deliberate

indifference to be established, there must be a purposeful act or failure to act on the part

of the defendant and resulting harm. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060; Shapley v.

Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). 

As found by Magistrate Judge Beck, Plaintiff alleges that medical staff at SVSP

failed to provide immediate post-surgical treatment that was ordered by the surgeon. 

Plaintiff also alleges the failure to stop profuse post-surgical bleeding, the failure to

provide sterile dressing for the surgical wound, and failure to administer pain medication. 

Plaintiff alleges that this resulted in chronic severe pain, loss of range of motion, loss of

strength, loss of musculature, loss of sensation, and permanent disability. While Plaintiff

has not named the individual medical staff members who denied treatment, the

allegations state a claim for deliberate indifference to serous medical needs. To the

Case 3:05-cv-01811-JSW Document 5 Filed 12/23/05 Page 4 of 7
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

extent that named Defendants Dr. Pompan, Dr. Bowman, Dr. Helmer, Dr. Thor, M.

Golin, correctional officer Burn, correctional officer Fernandez, correctional officer

Hernandez and correctional lieutenant Rankin were aware of the denial of treatment and

failed to take action, Plaintiff states a colorable claim against these Defendants. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot,

because Plaintiff was previously granted in forma pauperis status in the Eastern District. 

(Docket no. 3.)

2. Plaintiff states a cognizable claim of deliberate indifference against Salinas

Valley State Prison Defendants Dr. Pompan, Dr. Bowman, Dr. Helmer, Dr. Thor, M.

Golin, correctional officer Burn, correctional officer Fernandez, correctional officer

Hernandez and correctional lieutenant Rankin. The Clerk of the Court shall issue

summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy

of the complaint and all attachments thereto with all attachments thereto, and a copy of

this order upon: Dr. Pompan, Dr. Bowman, Dr. Helmer, Dr. Thor, M. Golin,

correctional officer Burn, correctional officer Fernandez, correctional officer

Hernandez and correctional lieutenant Rankin, Salinas Valley State Prison, P. O.

Box 1020, Soledad, California, 93960-1020. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this

order on Plaintiff.

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows:

a. No later than sixty (60) days from the date of this order, Defendants

shall either file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, or a notice

to the Court that they are of the opinion that this matter cannot be resolved by dispositive

motion. The motion shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and shall

conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 

Case 3:05-cv-01811-JSW Document 5 Filed 12/23/05 Page 5 of 7
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

Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor

qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If Defendants are of the

opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they shall so

inform the Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 

All papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served on the Plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the

Court and served on Defendant no later than thirty (30) days from the date Defendants’

motion is filed. The following notice is for the benefit of all pro se litigants:

The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment

by which they seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for

summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure will, if granted, end your case. 

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose

a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary

judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of

material fact--that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact

that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked

for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing

makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly

supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you

cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead,

you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as

provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the

defendant's declarations and documents and show that there

is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not

submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment,

if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary

judgment is granted in favor of defendants, your case will be

dismissed and there will be no trial.

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).

Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party opposing summary

judgment must come forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on

every essential element of his claim). 

c. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after

Plaintiff's opposition is filed. 

d. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is

Case 3:05-cv-01811-JSW Document 5 Filed 12/23/05 Page 6 of 7
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

due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 

4. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. No further Court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or

Local Rule 16 is required before the parties may conduct discovery.

5. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be

granted. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than five days prior

to the deadline sought to be extended.

6. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendants,

or Defendants' counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the

document to Defendants or Defendants’ counsel.

7. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to

prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 23, 2005

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01811-JSW Document 5 Filed 12/23/05 Page 7 of 7