Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02110/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02110-7/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Larry Giraldes, Jr.,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 01-2110 LKK PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Prebula, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, seeking damages

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 upon the ground defendants were

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. He also

seeks a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff alleges defendant

Sauhkla, upon instruction from defendants Prebula and Gavia,

prepared a memorandum authorizing plaintiff’s transfer from

California Medical Facility (CMF) to High Desert State Prison

(HDSP) and Dr. Andreasen approved the transfer knowing HDSP could

not provide adequate medical care for his severe digestive

Case 2:01-cv-02110-LKK-EFB Document 98 Filed 01/25/06 Page 1 of 10
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

2

problems, Hepatitis C and knee problems and that within days of

the September 28, 2001, transfer plaintiff began to suffer

vomiting and intestinal bleeding but was denied medical attention

upon the ground the necessary care was unavailable at HDSP. 

Defendants move for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposes. 

A party may move, without or without supporting affidavits,

for a summary judgment and the judgment sought shall be rendered

forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment

as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)-(c). 

An issue is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the opposing party. 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986). A fact is

“material” if it affects the right to recover under applicable

substantive law. Id. The moving party must submit evidence that

establishes the existence of an element essential to that party’s

case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at

trial. Celotex Corporation v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 

The moving party “always 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’” that the moving party believes

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. 

Case 2:01-cv-02110-LKK-EFB Document 98 Filed 01/25/06 Page 2 of 10
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

3

Id., at 323. If the movant does not bear the burden of proof on

an issue, the movant need only point to the absence of evidence

to support the opponent’s burden. To avoid summary judgment on

an issue upon which the opponent bears the burden of proof, the

opponent must “go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits,

or by the “‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there

is a genuine issue for trial.’” Id., at 324. The opponent’s

affirmative evidence must be sufficiently probative that a jury

reasonably could decide the issue in favor of the opponent. 

Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Inc. v. Zenith Radio

Corporation, 475 U.S. 574, 588 (1986). When the conduct alleged

is implausible, stronger evidence than otherwise required must be

presented to defeat summary judgment. Id., at 587.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) provides that “supporting and opposing

affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth

such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show

affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the

matters stated therein.” Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has

held that the opponent need not produce evidence in a form that

would be admissible at trial in order to avoid summary judgment. 

Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. Rather, the questions are (1) whether

the evidence could be submitted in admissible form and (2) “if

reduced to admissible evidence” would it be sufficient to carry

the party’s burden at trial. Id., at 327. Thus, in Fraser v.

Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2003), objection to the opposing

Case 2:01-cv-02110-LKK-EFB Document 98 Filed 01/25/06 Page 3 of 10
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

4

party’s reliance upon her diary upon the ground it was hearsay

was overruled because the party could testify to all the relevant

portions from personal knowledge or read it into evidence as

recorded recollection.

A verified complaint based on personal knowledge setting

forth specific facts admissible in evidence is treated as an

affidavit. Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 1995);

McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1987). A verified

motion based on personal knowledge in opposition to a summary

judgment motion setting forth facts that would be admissible in

evidence also functions as an affidavit. Johnson v. Meltzer, 134

F.,3d 1393 (9th Cir. 1998); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th

Cir. 2004).

Defects in opposing affidavits may be waived if no motion to

strike or other objection is made. Scharf v. United States

Attorney General, 597 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 1979) (incompetent

medical evidence).

The following facts are undisputed: Plaintiff was a

prisoner at the California Medical Facility (CMF) from July 28,

1994, until September 28, 2001, when plaintiff was transferred to

High Desert State Prison (HDSP). At all times relevant,

defendant Dr. Andreasen was the Chief Medical Officer and

defendant Dr. Sauhkla was a physician at CMF. Defendants Prebula

and Gavia were correctional counselors at CMF.

 California Medical Facility is a prison staffed and

equipped for prisoners with medical or psychiatric needs

Case 2:01-cv-02110-LKK-EFB Document 98 Filed 01/25/06 Page 4 of 10
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

1 Prison officials classify prisoners according to prisoners’ needs,

behavior and interests, departmental and institutional security interests and

public safety in order determine the appropriate facility for the prisoner’s

confinement. 15 Cal. Admin. Code § 3375(a), (b). 

5

requiring specialized and continuous care. Inmates with medical

conditions requiring frequent outpatient diagnostic, treatment or

rehabilitative services are designated, “Category O.” Such a

designation can override a classification otherwise warranting

placement in a more secure institution.1

After portions of plaintiff’s esophagus and stomach were

removed in 1985, he began to suffer from gastroesophageal reflux

disease (GERD), a condition in which acid flows into the canal

leading to the stomach. Plaintiff cannot eat large portions of

food and is subject to nausea, vomiting, bloating and diarrhea. 

Plaintiff loses weight easily. 

Treatments for GERD include elevating the head about six

inches while sleeping, medicines, eating several small meals

daily instead of three large meals and regular liquid dietary

supplements.

In 1994, plaintiff was designated “Category O” and was

transferred to CMF, where he variously received a liquid diet of 

high-protein drinks, double portions of meals to be eaten as

several small meals and the medicine Prevacid, which blocks the

production of stomach acid. 

In 1996, plaintiff began accumulating disciplinary

convictions for trafficking narcotics, threatening staff,

possessing a controlled substance, threatening a non-inmate,

Case 2:01-cv-02110-LKK-EFB Document 98 Filed 01/25/06 Page 5 of 10
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

6

assault on a non-inmate, possessing of marijuana and burning a

mattress. 

In 1997, plaintiff underwent surgery to reconstruct one 

knee but he re-injured it. Orthopedic specialists examined

plaintiff but disagreed about the advisability of additional

surgery. 

June 6, 1998, a physician not named as a defendant

recommended rescinding plaintiff’s Category O designation because

plaintiff had not had serious medical problems since 1994. 

February 7, 2001, defendant Sauhkla determined plaintiff’s

medical needs could be satisfied at any institution with a

medical facility. February 23, 2001, defendant Andreasen found

plaintiff’s condition did not affect his place of confinement. 

May 24, 2001, defendant Sauhkla found plaintiff’s medical needs

could be satisfied at any institution with outpatient care,

recommended rescinding plaintiff’s Category O designation and

recommended transferring plaintiff to any institution consistent

with his custody needs.

Defendants Andreasen and Sauhkla periodically consulted

orthopedic specialists, compared recent and remote knee x-rays,

examined plaintiff, monitored plaintiff’s GERD symptoms and

adjusted plaintiff’s treatment. Defendant Andreasen authorized

plaintiff’s use of a cane or a brace and plaintiff’s weight

occasionally dropped. Plaintiff developed gallstones and was

diagnosed with Hepatitis C. 

August 8, 2001, plaintiff appeared before a classification

Case 2:01-cv-02110-LKK-EFB Document 98 Filed 01/25/06 Page 6 of 10
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

7

committee (UCC) that included defendants Gavia and Prebula. 

Defendant Andreasen appeared and recommended plaintiff be

transferred either to Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) or to

HDSP. After considering plaintiff’s disciplinary record and

defendant Andreasen’s recommendation, the committee determined

plaintiff should be transferred either to SVSP or to HDSP. 

September 28, 2001, plaintiff was transferred to HDSP.

October 3, 2001, a physician at HDSP examined plaintiff and

questioned whether plaintiff should be confined there. But

December 17, 2001, the physician determined HDSP could provide

the medical care plaintiff required. 

Plaintiff claims defendants were deliberately indifferent to

his serious medical needs in several respects. Defendants

contend there is no genuine issue of material fact concerning

whether they were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious

medical needs. 

Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment when they are

deliberately indifferent to prisoners’ serious medical needs. 

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A prison official is

deliberately indifferent when he knows of and disregards a risk

of injury or harm that “is not one that today’s society chooses

to tolerate.” See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993);

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The official must

“be aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn

that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also

draw the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Deliberate

Case 2:01-cv-02110-LKK-EFB Document 98 Filed 01/25/06 Page 7 of 10
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

8

indifference “may appear when prison officials deny, delay or

intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be

shown by the way in which prison physicians provide medical

care." Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir.

1988). Mere negligence does not suffice. Gamble, 429 U.S. at

106. 

Plaintiff asserts defendants Prebula and Gavia instructed

defendant Sauhkla to authorize plaintiff’s transfer from CMF to

HDSP knowing plaintiff would not receive adequate medical care at

HDSP. There is no evidence that implicates Prebula and Gavia in

any wrongdoing and so they are entitled to judgment as a matter

of law.

Plaintiff asserts defendants Sauhkla and Andreasen knew

plaintiff would not receive adequate care for GERD at HDSP. It

is undisputed a physician at HDSP initially questioned whether

plaintiff’s medical needs could be satisfied there but later

determined they could be satisfied. There is no evidence

defendants knew of facts from which they could infer plaintiff’s

needs could not be satisfied there, drew the inference and

recommended the transfer anyway. No reasonable jury could find

in plaintiff’s favor and so Sauhkla and Andreasen are entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.

Plaintiff asserts defendants Sauhkla and Andreasen knew

plaintiff would not receive adequate care for Hepatitis-C at HDSP

but the record contains no evidence supporting this assertion. 

No reasonable jury could find in plaintiff’s favor and so Sauhkla

Case 2:01-cv-02110-LKK-EFB Document 98 Filed 01/25/06 Page 8 of 10
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 2

 As of the date of the parties’ submissions, plaintiff had not

undergone knee surgery. 

9

and Adreasen are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this

claim.

Plaintiff asserts defendants Sauhkla and Andreasen

recommended his transfer knowing he was scheduled for gallbladder

surgery and for knee surgery.

It is undisputed these defendants monitored plaintiff’s

condition at CMF, in 1998 a CMF physician recommended rescinding

plaintiff’s Category O designation, orthopedic specialists

disagreed about whether knee surgery was advisable and defendants

knew plaintiff developed gallstones and was diagnosed with

Hepatitis C while at CMF. Defendants adduce evidence plaintiff

was not scheduled for gallbladder surgery or knee surgery before

the transfer and plaintiff underwent gallbladder surgery after

the transfer.2 Plaintiff adduces no evidence to contest this or

to show defendants were aware of a high risk of danger to

plaintiff but delayed surgery anyway. No reasonable jury could

find in plaintiff’s favor and so Sauhkla and Andreasen are

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

For these reasons, plaintiff’s March 2, 2005, motion for a

preliminary injunction should be denied, defendants’ April 28,

2005, motion for summary judgment should be granted and judgment

should be entered in their favor.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

Case 2:01-cv-02110-LKK-EFB Document 98 Filed 01/25/06 Page 9 of 10
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

10

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: January 24, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:01-cv-02110-LKK-EFB Document 98 Filed 01/25/06 Page 10 of 10