Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01065/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01065-52/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL D. HARRISON, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

T. MOORE, et al., 

 Defendants.

 Case No. 1:08-cv-1065-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT 

IN PART AND DENY IN PART 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(Doc. 247)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against 

Defendants Moore, Davis-Jones, Rabaino-Burns, Dava, Kim, Galvan, C. Gonzalez, M. 

Gonzalez, O’Neal, Parsons, Roth, Tumayo, Urbano, Vicente, Casio, Cisneros, and 

Coronado on Plaintiff’s medical indifference claims. Doc. 160.1 The matter was referred 

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 

302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

On June 18, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations 

to grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Doc. 247. 

 

1

Service was recently reattempted on Defendant Johnson. Doc. 256. Defendants Bastianon, Zakari, 

Edmonds and Raygoza have not been served in this action and have not otherwise appeared in it. Docs. 

238 and 245.

Case 1:08-cv-01065-AWI-HBK Document 266 Filed 08/26/15 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

Defendants filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations on July 2, 2015. 

Doc. 254. Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations on July 28, 

2015. Doc. 260. Defendants object to the recommendation to deny summary judgment 

to Defendants Davis Jones and the mental health defendants, and to the 

recommendation to deny qualified immunity to these defendants. Plaintiff objects to the 

recommendation to grant summary judgment to Defendants Moore, Kim, and Dava, as 

well as to the mental health defendants after the period of April 20-May 3, 2007.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has 

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

Court finds that the June 18, 2015 Findings and Recommendations are supported by the 

record and by proper analysis. The Court accordingly adopts all parts of the Findings 

and Recommendations except for the recommendation regarding Defendant Moore as

Plaintiff sufficiently clarified his allegations against Defendant Moore in his objections

(submitted in the form of a declaration signed under penalty of perjury). The Court 

addresses the parties’ objections below.

I. DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS

A. Nurse Davis Jones

The Court rejects Defendants’ contention that there is no issue of disputed fact 

regarding whether Nurse Davis Jones violated the Eighth Amendment. To the contrary, 

Davis Jones’ alleged refusal to examine or refer Plaintiff for further treatment despite his 

complaints of severe pain and the visible swelling and bruising of his arm; and her 

peremptory statement that if he could move his arm, “it ain’t broke,” if true, indicate that 

she consciously disregarded obvious signs of serious injury, and failed to provide a 

minimally competent level of care. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th 

Case 1:08-cv-01065-AWI-HBK Document 266 Filed 08/26/15 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

Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Tech., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 

1136 (9th Cir. 1997); Ortiz v. City of Imperial, 884 F.2d 1312, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989); 

Moore v. Thomas, 653 F.Supp.2d 984, 1000 (N.D. Cal. 2009).

B. Mental Health Staff: Psychologist Roth, Correctional Counselor Cisneros, 

LPTs Parsons, M. Gonzalez, C. Gonzalez, Galvan, Casio, O’Neal, Coronado, 

and Tamayo2

The Court also rejects Defendants’ objections that there is no issue of disputed 

fact regarding whether the mental health defendants violated the Eighth Amendment.

Taken as true, Plaintiff’s allegations that he complained of arm pain to every single 

mental health staff member with whom he interacted, that the bruising and swelling in his 

arm was plainly visible, that none of the mental health defendants responded to his 

complaints, and that they falsified their records, state a claim of medical indifference.

See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060; M.H. v. Cnty. of Alameda, 62 F.Supp.3d 1049, 

1077-1078 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (intake nurse potentially liable for deliberate indifference 

where she knew of decedent’s risk factors for alcohol withdrawal, but failed to ensure he 

received follow up care, and may have falsified records).

Although some of the above Defendants may not have interacted with Plaintiff 

between April 20 and May 3, Defendants have not at this stage shown an absence of 

disputed fact as to any Defendant in particular. Therefore the Court finds there remain

issues of disputed fact regarding which Defendants allegedly ignored Plaintiff’s claims of 

severe pain and visible signs of injury between April 20 and May 3, 2007. The fact that 

Plaintiff received an ice pack and some ibuprofen on the day of his injury does not 

 

2

As noted, Psychiatrist Zakari and LPTs Edmonds, Raygoza, Johnson, and Bastianon have not been 

served or appeared in this action. The claims against them are not addressed in the Findings and 

Recommendations.

Case 1:08-cv-01065-AWI-HBK Document 266 Filed 08/26/15 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

absolve mental health defendants of potential liability under the Eighth Amendment for 

the two-week period that followed. An ice pack would be of limited use after a few hours, 

and Defendants do not indicate they were aware Plaintiff was taking ibuprofen. 

Defendants provide no authority for their contention that non-treating prison staff are

entitled to assume that inmates are already receiving adequate care, and the Court has 

found none. See Estate of Prasad ex rel. Prasad v. Cnty. of Sutter, 958 F.Supp.2d 

1101, 1113 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (sheriff’s deputies who ignored medical instructions were 

not justified in believing decedent “was in capable hands” even though he was receiving 

some treatment from medical staff).

C. Qualified Immunity

The Court rejects Defendants’ argument that they are entitled to qualified 

immunity. It is clearly established that both medical and non-medical staff may be held 

liable for failing to respond to an inmate’s complaints of pain and requests for medical 

assistance. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 90 (2007); Estate of Prasad ex rel. 

Prasad v. Cnty. of Sutter, 958 F.Supp.2d 1101, 1112 (E.D. Cal. 2013). It is also clearly 

established that prison staff may violate the Eighth Amendment not only by failing to 

provide care altogether but by providing care that is medically unacceptable. See Snow 

v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled on other grounds by Peralta v. 

Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir. 2014); Ortiz, 884 F.3d at 1314. Accepting 

Plaintiff’s allegations as true, reasonable prison staff in Davis Jones’ and the mental 

health Defendants’ positions would have known that ignoring an inmate’s visible injury 

and complaints of pain was unlawful.

II. PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS

A. Defendant Moore

Case 1:08-cv-01065-AWI-HBK Document 266 Filed 08/26/15 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

Plaintiff clarifies for the first time in his objections (submitted in the form of a 

declaration made under penalty of perjury) that Moore was present at his cell-front when 

Defendant Davis-Jones told Plaintiff that if he could move his arm, it was not broken. 

Plaintiff states that “they both left me to suffer. So Sgt. Moore is just as guilty as T. 

Davis Jones.” Doc. 260, at 2. Plaintiff also states that “when I showed [Moore] my 

broken arm and asked for help, he refused, knowing I was hurt.” Id. It is unclear when 

this subsequent refusal took place. Taking as true Plaintiff’s allegations that his arm was 

visibly swollen and bruised, that he complained of severe pain, and that Moore knew 

Plaintiff had been in a fight, there is an issue of disputed fact regarding whether 

Defendant Moore acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs

when Moore refused to seek medical care. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1098 

(9th Cir. 2006); Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 904-905 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, 

the Court does not adopt the Findings and Recommendations with regards to Defendant 

Moore and will deny summary judgment on this defendant.

B. Dr. Kim & Nurse Dava

The Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument there are issues of disputed fact regarding 

whether Defendants Kim and Dava violated his Eighth Amendment rights. As the 

Magistrate Judge stated in the Findings and Recommendations, medical staff have 

broad discretion in prescribing medication and determining what care is appropriate. 

See Doc. 247, at 20-21; see also, e.g., Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 

2004). Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Defendants have 

established an absence of evidence to support the claim that Defendant Kim or 

Defendant Dava knowingly provided care that was medically unacceptable when they 

failed to prescribe antibiotics and deferred further treatment decisions until follow-up 

Case 1:08-cv-01065-AWI-HBK Document 266 Filed 08/26/15 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

appointments. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058; Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 

(9th Cir. 1996).

C. Mental Health Defendants

The Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument that the mental health defendants caused 

an unconstitutional delay in medical care for the period from June 6, 2007 through 

September 1, 2007. As the Findings and Recommendations noted, Defendant saw 

medical staff no fewer than 12 times during this three-month period, and his level of care 

was found to be constitutionally adequate. Plaintiff’s contention that the mental health 

defendants could have simply called the chief medical officer to have Plaintiff sent to 

Mercy Hospital is not supported by the facts. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts all parts of the June 18, 2015 Findings and Recommendations 

(Doc. 247) except for the recommendation regarding Defendant Moore;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 202) is GRANTED

as to Defendants Rabaino-Burns, Kim, and Dava; and 

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 202) is DENIED as to 

Defendants Moore, Davis-Jones, Urbano, Roth, C. Gonzalez, M. Gonzalez, 

Casio, Coronado, Cisneros, Galvan, O’Neal, Parsons, and Tamayo.

4. The case is to remain open.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01065-AWI-HBK Document 266 Filed 08/26/15 Page 6 of 6