Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01923/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01923-5/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

GARY CECIL,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. BEARD, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1923 TLN 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 December 13, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

that were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections to 

the findings and recommendations.

In his objections, plaintiff now argues that based on all of his medical issues he needs to 

be closer to a hospital, relying on the January 10, 2012 recommendation of R. Miranda, 

Physician’s Assistant (“PAC”). (ECF No. 31 at 7.) Plaintiff claims, without a record citation, 

that on or about January 10, 2012,

////

Case 2:13-cv-01923-TLN-KJN Document 36 Filed 04/01/14 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

Dr. Miranda correctly diagnosed all [of] plaintiff’s medical issues, 

and addressed said aneurysm “should that aneurysm become an 

issue here at High Desert Prison, it will be fatal for you, as any of 

your other health issues. You need to be and should be nearer to a 

hospital not 2 hours or more away from the nearest hospital, with 

weather permitting.”

 

(ECF No. 31 at 7.) Plaintiff also contends that the endorsements for transfer state that High 

Desert State Prison is not appropriate housing for plaintiff and his health needs. (ECF No. 31 at 

6.)

The record confirms that PAC Miranda filed a medical classification chrono (CDCR 128-

C-3) requesting a medical high risk transfer for plaintiff on January 10, 2012. (ECF No. 10 at 

25.) This chrono notes that plaintiff poses a high medical risk, but requires an “OP” or outpatient 

level of care, infrequent basic consultations, and an uncomplicated nursing care acuity, and 

plaintiff has a full duty functional capacity. (Id.) PAC Miranda referenced the following medical 

conditions: hypertension/coronary artery disease with history of myocardial infarction or heart 

attack, total occlusion of right coronary artery, and history of left iliac artery aneurysm, but does 

not mention plaintiff’s umbilical hernia.1 (ECF No. 10 at 25.) Despite PAC Miranda’s chrono, 

on February 8, 2012, plaintiff was endorsed for retention at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”), 

noting that plaintiff was appropriately housed because HDSP is a basic institution, and that 

because plaintiff was not being placed in a Minimum Support Facility, camp or out of state 

correctional facility, his transfer was not financially prudent. (ECF No. 10 at 23; see also No. 10 

at 20.) 

////

 

1

 On January 10, 2012, PAC Miranda also completed a Disability Placement Program 

Verification form confirming that plaintiff is mobility impaired based on his coronary artery 

disease which precludes him from walking more than 100 yards without pause. (ECF No. 10 at 

30.) On January 30, 2012, PAC Miranda completed a comprehensive accommodation chrono 

providing for a ground floor cell with a bottom bunk, mobility vest, and a physical restriction of 

no lifting over 25 pounds. (ECF No. 10 at 28.) None of the records authored by PAC Miranda 

state that plaintiff is at “fatal risk” due to the aneurysm. (ECF No. 10 at 25, 28, 30.) The court 

found no other medical records signed by PAC Miranda during this time frame, and plaintiff did 

not cite to any.

Case 2:13-cv-01923-TLN-KJN Document 36 Filed 04/01/14 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

On April 17, 2013, plaintiff was endorsed for transfer to Richard J. Donovan Correctional 

Facility (“RJD”), noting “Infrequent Consultation, Full Duty, High Medical Risk, and 

Uncomplicated Nursing.” (ECF No. 10 at 34.) The April 17, 2013 endorsement does not state 

that HDSP housing is not appropriate for plaintiff’s medical needs. (Id.) Such endorsement was 

extended on August 26, 2013. (ECF No. 24 at 5.) Plaintiff declares his new endorsement to RJD 

will expire on April 17, 2014. (ECF No. 31 at 8.) The litigation coordinator confirmed that 

plaintiff has been on a waiting list for transfer to RJD since April 17, 2013. (ECF No. 24 at 5.) 

Even assuming PAC Miranda intended plaintiff to be transferred to RJD due to his overall 

health issues, Dr. Rohlfing declared that plaintiff’s cardiac issues and high blood pressure are 

being managed through regular visits to outside specialists and medication, and that plaintiff’s left 

iliac artery aneurysm was previously repaired through a by-pass procedure,

2

is monitored 

regularly, and is in stable condition. (ECF No. 24 at 8.) Moreover, Dr. Rohlfing clarified that it 

was the concern for cardiac issues that might arise during the hernia repair that necessitated 

plaintiff’s transfer to a prison with adequate medical resources “to address cardiac complications 

which may arise during surgery.” 3 (ECF No. 24 at 8.) Finally, Dr. Rohlfing declared that 

plaintiff’s hernia repair could be performed on an elective basis, rather than on an emergency 

basis. (ECF No. 24 at 7.) Thus, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate, with competent medical 

evidence, that his overall health condition requires his immediate transfer. 

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

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

////

 

2

 Plaintiff’s left iliac aneurysm was repaired on June 19, 2008 (ECF No. 10 at 37-38), and he 

received a left heart catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention on May 23, 2008 

(ECF No. 10 at 35-36).

3

 Dr. Syverson’s March 18, 2013 report supports Dr. Rohlfing’s opinion: plaintiff “would be 

appropriate for repair of umbilical hernia but he will require cardiology clearance prior to having 

surgery. Furthermore, [plaintiff] expressed his significant concerns regarding the fact that he has 

a lot of risk with any anesthesia and with any surgery. . . . [Plaintiff] is anticipating transfer to the 

State of California Hospital for care of high risk patients who require surgery.” (ECF No. 26 at 

9.)

Case 2:13-cv-01923-TLN-KJN Document 36 Filed 04/01/14 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

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis.

Finally, the undersigned shares the Magistrate Judge’s concern about the delay in 

providing medical care. Indeed, if the applicable standard were based on what is reasonably 

necessary to address plaintiff’s medical condition, preliminary relief might be appropriate. However, 

as correctly noted by the Magistrate Judge, the standard here is whether plaintiff has shown that he is 

likely to succeed in demonstrating that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s 

medical needs, which Plaintiff has not shown.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 13, 2013, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 19) is denied.

Dated: March 31, 2014

ceci1923.804

Case 2:13-cv-01923-TLN-KJN Document 36 Filed 04/01/14 Page 4 of 4