Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02147/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02147-20/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 

FLOYD ESPEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEUEL VOCATIONAL INSTITUTION, 

et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-2147 TLN KJN P 

ORDER

Plaintiff, a former 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 July 27, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 

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

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendants have filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations. 

 The magistrate judge recommended that Defendants’ summary judgment motion be 

granted as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Street and Awatani alleging inadequate pain 

medication and anti-seizure medication. The magistrate judge recommended that Defendants’ 

summary judgment motion be denied as to Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Baath regarding 

the alleged discontinuation of the medication Artane. 

Case 2:13-cv-02147-TLN-KJN Document 98 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 6
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

 In their objections, Defendants argue that the magistrate judge erred in recommending that 

Defendant Baath be denied summary judgment. The undersigned addresses Defendants’ 

objections herein. 

 In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that on April 30, 2013, he arrived at 

the Deuel Vocational Institution (“DVI”). (ECF No. 15 at 5.) Plaintiff alleged that on April 30, 

2013, Defendant Baath discontinued Plaintiff’s medication Artane, which had been prescribed to 

treat side effects from antipsychotic medications Plaintiff had been taking, such as Abilify. (Id.) 

Plaintiff alleged that he had been taking Artane “for years.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleged that after the 

Artane was discontinued, he suffered lockjaw as a side effect from the Abilify. (Id. at 6.) 

Plaintiff alleged that he was given Benadryl injections and pills over three days to treat the 

lockjaw. (Id.) 

 In the summary judgment motion, Defendants argued that Defendant Baath did not act 

with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 

1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (standard for Eighth Amendment claim alleging inadequate medical 

care). In support of the summary judgment motion, Defendants submitted Defendant Baath’s 

declaration. (ECF No. 89-3 at 1-3.) In relevant part, Defendant Baath stated that when Plaintiff 

arrived at DVI on April 30, 2013, Plaintiff had prescriptions for Abilify and Artane. (Id.) 

Defendant Baath stated that Abilify had potential side effects, including extrapyramidal 

symptoms such as lockjaw. (Id.) Defendant Baath stated that Artane was one of many 

medications that could be prescribed to counteract extrapyramidal symptoms. (Id.) Other drugs 

used in conjunction with Abilify include Cogentin, Vistaril and Benadryl. (Id.) 

 In his declaration, Defendant stated that on April 30, 2013, he discontinued Plaintiff’s 

prescription for Artane because it was a banned medication. (Id.) Defendant recalls offering 

Plaintiff Cogentin in its place, which Plaintiff declined. (Id.) 

 On May 9, 2013, Defendant saw Plaintiff for a psychiatry visit. (Id.) Plaintiff reported a 

history of bipolar disorder and intermittent lockjaw. (Id.) Defendant discontinued Plaintiff’s 

prescription for Abilify to rule out lockjaw as a reaction to taking Abilify without Artane. (Id.) 

 In his declaration, Defendant stated that on May 10, 2013, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. 

Case 2:13-cv-02147-TLN-KJN Document 98 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 6
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

Newman for complaints of lockjaw. (Id.) Because Plaintiff reported a previous reaction to 

Cogentin, and complained that Vistaril had been ineffective, Defendant Baath submitted a nonformulary request for Benadryl to rule out lockjaw. (Id.) 

 On May 24, 2013, Plaintiff returned to Dr. Newman, again with complaints of pain and 

swelling in his right jaw. (Id.) The diagnosis was cellulitis and an antibiotic was prescribed. 

(Id.) 

 In his declaration, Defendant Baath also states that had Plaintiff experienced lockjaw as a 

result of not taking Artane, that symptom would have manifested itself within two days. (Id.) 

 The magistrate judge recommended that Defendant Baath be denied summary judgment 

for the following reasons. (ECF No. 95 at 8-9.) First, the magistrate judge found that while 

Defendant Baath may have been prohibited from prescribing Artane, it was unclear why 

Defendant did not discontinue Plaintiff’s prescription for Abilify on April 30, 2013, i.e., when he 

discontinued Plaintiff’s Artane prescription. (Id.) The magistrate judge stated that he could not 

determine whether Defendant acted with deliberate indifference without knowing why he allowed 

Plaintiff to continue taking Abilify without prescribing another drug to prevent lockjaw, which 

Plaintiff claimed he had suffered in the past. 

 The magistrate judge also found that Defendant Baath’s claim that Plaintiff suffered no 

adverse effects as a result of taking Artane was not supported by the record. In his declaration, 

Defendant stated that the symptoms of lockjaw would have manifested themselves within two 

days of not taking Artane, i.e., two days after April 30, 2013. The magistrate judge found that if 

that was the case, then it was unclear why Defendant Baath treated Plaintiff for lockjaw with 

Benadryl on May 10, 2013. The magistrate judge also observed that Defendant Baath did not 

address whether Benadryl alleviated any symptoms. 

 The magistrate judge also found that whether Plaintiff suffered from lockjaw on May 9 

and 10, 2013 was a materially disputed fact. The magistrate judge made this finding based on 

Defendant’s decision to treat Plaintiff with Benadryl for his symptoms, a drug used to treat 

lockjaw. In addition, Plaintiff alleged that he experienced lockjaw symptoms. 

 In his objections, Defendant argues that the magistrate judge erred by failing to find that 

Case 2:13-cv-02147-TLN-KJN Document 98 Filed 09/25/15 Page 3 of 6
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

he did not act with deliberate indifference. A Defendant is liable under the Eighth Amendment if 

he knows that Plaintiff faces “a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing 

to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 827 (1994.) 

In his objections, Defendant argues that he did not act with deliberate indifference toward 

Plaintiff on April 30, 2013, because he offered Plaintiff Cogentin in place of Artane. (ECF No. 

96 at 2.) While this is true, as noted in the findings and recommendations, Plaintiff alleges that 

Cogentin caused him to suffer a previous reaction. The undersigned agrees with the magistrate 

judge that the Court cannot determine whether Defendant acted with deliberate indifference on

April 30, 2013, without knowing more about the conversation Defendant had with Plaintiff on 

April 30, 2013, and why Defendant failed to prescribe one of the other “many such medications” 

used to counteract the extrapyramidal symptoms caused by Abilify, such as lockjaw. (See ECF 

No. 89-3 at 1 (defendant Baath’s declaration).) 

 In the objections, Defendant also argues that there is no evidence that on April 30, 2013, 

Defendant was aware that Plaintiff faced a serious risk of lockjaw, as opposed to any other 

potential side effect of taking Abilify. Defendants argue that lockjaw is only one potential side 

effect of Abilify. Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not mention lockjaw until May 9, 2013, over 

one week later. 

In essence, Defendant argues that he did not act with deliberate indifference when he 

discontinued Artane because he did not know what specific potential extrapyramidal symptom it 

had been prescribed to treat. The undersigned does not agree with this argument. While 

Defendant Baath may not have known what specific extrapyramidal symptom Artane had been 

prescribed to treat, the record demonstrates that Defendant knew that Artane had been prescribed 

to treat some extrapyramidal symptom. Defendant does not argue that extrapyramidal symptoms 

do not constitute a serious medical need. Therefore, Defendant knew that Plaintiff faced a serious 

risk of harm as a result of the discontinuation of Artane. 

 Defendant also argues that he did not know that Plaintiff faced a serious risk of harm 

because Plaintiff did not mention lockjaw to him until May 9, 2013. The evidence does not 

clearly support this claim. Defendant’s declaration does not clearly state that Plaintiff did not 

Case 2:13-cv-02147-TLN-KJN Document 98 Filed 09/25/15 Page 4 of 6
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

mention lockjaw until May 9, 2013. In his declaration, Defendant states that on April 30, 2013, 

he offered Plaintiff Cogentin, which Plaintiff declined. Defendant does not provide any 

additional information regarding this conversation with Plaintiff, including whether he discussed 

with Plaintiff why Artane had been prescribed. Defendant goes on to state that he saw Plaintiff 

on May 9, 2013 for a psychiatry clinic visit, where Plaintiff reported a history of bipolar disorder 

and a history of intermittent lockjaw. Defendant does not state that this was the first time 

Plaintiff mentioned lockjaw. 

In any event, as discussed above, Defendant Baath’s declaration indicates that on April 

30, 2013, he knew that Artane had been prescribed to treat one of the potential extrapyramidal 

symptoms of Abilify, including lockjaw. Thus, Defendant knew that Plaintiff faced a potentially 

serious risk of harm were he not to receive Artane. Defendant’s alleged failure to ascertain what 

specific side effect Artane was prescribed to treat does not demonstrate that he did not act with 

deliberate indifference. 

 In the objections, Defendant also argues that the magistrate judge should have found that 

Plaintiff did not suffer lockjaw or any other adverse effect as a result of not taking Artane. 

Defendant argues that the timing of Plaintiff’s lockjaw symptoms on May 10, 2013 was 

inconsistent with being caused by a reaction to Abilify and an alternative diagnosis (i.e., the May 

24, 2013 cellulitis diagnosis) was made regarding the pain. 

 As discussed in the findings and recommendations, it is undisputed that on May 10, 2013, 

Plaintiff suffered from symptoms consistent with lockjaw. While Defendant argues in the 

objections that Plaintiff’s symptoms could not have been caused by lockjaw, it is undisputed that 

he treated these symptoms as if they were caused by lockjaw by prescribing Benadryl. 

Defendant’s summary judgment motion does not address whether Plaintiff’s May 10, 2013,

lockjaw symptoms were successfully treated with Benadryl. Defendant has also provided no 

evidence supporting his argument that Plaintiff’s May 10, 2013, jaw pain was caused by cellulitis. 

The undersigned agrees with the magistrate record that whether Plaintiff suffered from lockjaw 

on May 10, 2013 is a materially disputed fact. 

 The undersigned agrees with the magistrate judge that Defendant Baath is not entitled to 

Case 2:13-cv-02147-TLN-KJN Document 98 Filed 09/25/15 Page 5 of 6
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

qualified immunity. 

 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 

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

analysis. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 27, 2015 are adopted in full; 

 2. Defendants’ summary judgment motion (ECF No. 73) is granted as to Plaintiff’s 

claims against Defendants Street and Awatani alleging inadequate pain and anti-seizure 

medication; Defendants’ summary judgment motion is denied as to Plaintiff’s claim against 

Defendant Baath regarding the discontinuation of Artane. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 24, 2015

Case 2:13-cv-02147-TLN-KJN Document 98 Filed 09/25/15 Page 6 of 6