Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00421/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00421-10/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

THETHESIUS HOSEA MOSLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZEPP,

Defendant.

No. 1:23-cv-00421-JLT-EPG (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE 

GRANTED

(ECF No. 41)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY (30) DAYS

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Thethesius Hosea Mosley is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

1 This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s deliberate 

indifference claim against Defendant Zepp, stemming from Plaintiff’s allegations in his complaint 

that Defendant failed to treat his knee injury. 

On June 20, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff 

does not have evidence to support his claim and the undisputed facts showed that Defendant 

extensively treated Plaintiff’s knee injury. (ECF No. 41). As discussed further below, despite 

multiple extensions that culminated in a December 20, 2024 deadline for Plaintiff to oppose 

Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff has failed to do so. 

1 Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis. (April 24, 2023 docket entry noting receipt for filing fee). 

Case 1:23-cv-00421-JLT-EPG Document 67 Filed 01/16/25 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

27

28

2

Upon review, the Court concludes that Defendant has shown that Plaintiff does not have 

evidence to sustain this case and Plaintiff, who has failed to respond to the motion for summary

judgment, has not shown any genuine issues for trial. Accordingly, the Court will recommend that 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted. 

II. BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff filed his complaint in March 2023. (ECF No. 1). He alleges as follows.

On June 3, 2021, Plaintiff was jumping onto the dayroom table as a form of exercise and 

felt a pop in his left knee. Afterwards, he could not walk or put pressure on the knee. He 

requested medical attention and was seen by a nurse and was informed that Defendant Zepp was 

going to be on vacation for 60 days. Therefore, he was denied any form of medical care for his 

“swollen left meniscus tear knee.” 

Thereafter, Plaintiff generally indicates that he requested medical care but was denied any 

type of basic treatment. Notably, by July 26, 2021, no care, including pain medication, had been 

provided.

Accordingly, Plaintiff filed a healthcare grievance on August 6, 2021, because the “entire 

medical staff failed to assist [him] with any type of care as” his condition worsened. The only 

way to get to his appointments was to limp there or ask a young person to help him. The doctor 

refused to provide him a cane. 

Plaintiff was not getting anywhere with KVSP administration, and “went to the next 

level,” but nothing actually changed as far as him receiving medical help for his knee. Plaintiff is 

still having trouble with his knee, and his “physical therapy sessions are mostly stop and go 

sessions whereas the preparation to getting surgery has depended on” completing physical 

therapy and the problem is that “the correction officer fail[ed] to transport [him] to the session.” 

Plaintiff states that he received no medications for his knee for eighteen months. “Only 

after filing with the Government Claims Program, Office of Risk and Insurance Management 

Department of General Services, did real results for corrective treatment start, which began” with 

a first pain shot on October 28, 2022. 

Plaintiff concludes by listing some specific allegations that appear directed against 

Case 1:23-cv-00421-JLT-EPG Document 67 Filed 01/16/25 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

27

28

3

Defendant Zepp, stating that Zepp “watched his patient suffer for nearly 6 months and without the 

least care for a patient who actually pleaded with him for medical treatment from . . . day one.” 

Plaintiff told Zepp that it had to be a meniscus tear, but Zepp just laughed and said he was in 

more pain than Plaintiff and told him that his knee pain was just osteoarthritis even though his 

knee had remained swollen for nearly four months. Plaintiff had a purple visible swollen knee, 

but Zepp refused him basic care and it took him nine months to order a cane even after Plaintiff’s 

condition worsened. 

At screening, the Court determined that only Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Zepp was 

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment should 

proceed. (ECF No. 9). After Plaintiff filed a notice to proceed on only this claim (ECF No. 11), 

the Court issued findings and recommendations consistent with the screening order (ECF No. 13), 

which the District Judge adopted (ECF No. 17). 

B. Defendant’s Motion and Plaintiff’s Lack of Opposition

On June 20, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff 

did not have evidence to support his claim and that Defendant provided extensive treatment for 

Plaintiff’s knee. (ECF No. 41). Thereafter, the Court granted Plaintiff three extensions to respond 

to the motion, mainly based on Plaintiff’s professed lack of access to legal materials, which 

culminated in a final deadline of December 20, 2024, for Plaintiff to file his opposition. (ECF 

Nos. 44, 48, 63). When added together, the granted extensions equal about five extra months for 

Plaintiff to respond to the motion for summary judgment. 

However, despite warning Plaintiff that, if he failed to timely respond, “Defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment may be granted, and this case may be dismissed, without giving 

him a further opportunity to respond,” Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition, file another 

extension request, or file anything since the Court’s last order on the issue. (ECF No. 66).

III. DEFENDANT’S MOTION AND UNDISPUTED FACTS

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment primarily argues that Plaintiff lacks evidence 

to support his claim that Defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs 

related to his knee injury.2(ECF No. 41). Rather, Defendant contends that Defendant provided 

2 Defendant also argues that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity and that Plaintiff’s claim for 

Case 1:23-cv-00421-JLT-EPG Document 67 Filed 01/16/25 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

27

28

4

Plaintiff extensive treatment for his knee. In support of this argument, Defendant attaches 

evidence to his motion for summary judgment, which mainly consists of Defendant’s declaration 

and Plaintiff’s medical records. 

As required by Local Rule 260(a), Defendant has provided a statement of undisputed 

facts, which cite the corresponding evidence used to support them. (ECF No. 41-3). Summarized, 

the most material facts that Defendant relies on are as follows:

Plaintiff was confined at Kern Valley State Prison at the time of the events alleged and 

Defendant was a doctor and surgeon who worked at the prison. Plaintiff received a nursing 

evaluation on June 10, 2021, for complaints of left knee pain after he purportedly injured his knee 

jumping over a table. The knee was not swollen or deformed; Plaintiff had a normal gait, and he 

received a bandage. The nurse submitted a refill slip for a gel that Plaintiff could use on his knee. 

Defendant ordered an x-ray of the knee that same day, which revealed only minimal 

osteoarthritis—the knee was not broken or dislocated. Defendant saw Plaintiff on July 2, 2021,

for knee pain complaints and a follow up on the x-ray. An examination revealed mostly normal 

findings and Defendant developed a working diagnosis that Plaintiff had tendinitis given his 

recent high-impact exercise, osteoarthritis, and obesity. There was no indication that Plaintiff 

needed emergent medical attention. Defendant prescribed prednisone, maintained another 

prescription, and ordered a consultation with a dietician to help with Plaintiff’s obesity. 

After some intervening treatment with other medical providers, Plaintiff saw Defendant 

again on September 16, 2021, including for complaints of knee pain. Defendant noted that 

Plaintiff had a short left leg and had custom orthopedic footwear to account for the difference. 

Defendant updated the custom orthotic footwear accommodation. 

Plaintiff saw Defendant again on October 25, 2021, in part for complaints of knee pain. 

Plaintiff’s exam was mostly normal, e.g., his range of motion in his leg left was normal, he could 

get on and off the exam table without issue, and his knee was not swollen. However, Defendant 

suspected a medial meniscus tear based on some abnormal findings and ordered physical therapy 

and an MRI of Plaintiff’s left knee. Likewise, Defendant recommended that Plaintiff continue 

punitive damages fails. The Court need not address these arguments as Defendant’s primary argument—

that Plaintiff lacks evidence to support his claim—disposes of this case.

Case 1:23-cv-00421-JLT-EPG Document 67 Filed 01/16/25 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

27

28

5

using a gel for pain relief, but denied Plaintiff’s request for other medications that Defendant 

determined were not appropriate for a meniscus tear.

Defendant met with Plaintiff on December 17, 2021, to address his request for a cane. 

Again, Plaintiff had normal findings on examination, e.g., a normal gait. Defendant ordered a 

cane and re-ordered an MRI, which had been previously denied because Plaintiff had not yet 

completed physical therapy. 

Defendant met with Plaintiff again on December 27, 2021, and by this time, the MRI had 

been approved despite Plaintiff not yet completing physical therapy. The physical exam of 

Plaintiff was normal.

Plaintiff had his MRI on January 21, 2022, which revealed no discrete tear of either of 

Plaintiff’s menisci and only a fraying of his lateral meniscus. He met with Defendant for a follow 

up of the MRI results on February 14, 2022. Plaintiff had some normal findings; however, 

Defendant noted that Plaintiff had pain in the medial joint space of his left knee, which is the 

opposite side of where the frayed meniscus was. This, along with a positive McMurray test, and 

Plaintiff’s medial left knee joint being tender, indicated to Defendant that Plaintiff’s medial 

meniscus was damage. Defendant submitted an electronic consultation for an orthopedic opinion 

for what appeared to be inconsistent findings from the MRI and the physical examinations. 

Defendant also later ordered a request for orthopedic surgery.

On March 7, 2022, Defendant reviewed Plaintiff’s medical file and updated the care plan, 

noting that the request for orthopedic surgery was denied pending Plaintiff’s completion of 

physical therapy. Defendant submitted another e-consult to orthopedics. On March 8, 2022, the 

orthopedic e-consult results stated that a frayed meniscus would not result in the knee giving out 

and recommended PT. 

Defendant saw Plaintiff on March 10, 2022, in part to discuss the e-consult and the denial 

of surgery. However, Defendant did not attempt to physically examine Plaintiff based on his loud 

and threatening demeanor. Plaintiff started physical therapy and received his first physical 

therapy evaluation on March 14, 2022. 

On May 2, 2022, Defendant met with Plaintiff to address his complaint that someone had 

bumped into his left knee. The physical exam was normal, but Plaintiff still had knee pain. 

Case 1:23-cv-00421-JLT-EPG Document 67 Filed 01/16/25 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

27

28

6

Defendant ordered another x-ray and refused Plaintiff’s request for medications that Defendant 

deemed inappropriate. The x-ray revealed no fracture, dislocation, or swelling—only mild 

osteoarthritis.

On June 13, 2022, Defendant met with Plaintiff and noted that he was ambulatory and that 

Plaintiff needed to complete physical therapy before he received a face-to-face orthopedic 

consultation.

As Plaintiff’s physical therapy was nearing its end, Defendant submitted a request for 

orthopedic surgery evaluation on July 22, 2022, and the request was approved on July 25.

On September 20, 2022, Defendant had his final meeting with Plaintiff as his primary care 

provider. Defendant informed Plaintiff that he was approved for an orthopedic consultation, but 

they were waiting for it to be scheduled with the outside institution. Plaintiff was ambulatory and 

his physical exam results were normal.

Plaintiff received additional care after his conclusion of treatment with Defendant. 

On October 12, 2022, Plaintiff was discharged from physical therapy—having completed 

13 out of 14 sessions with a final session date of October 5, 2022. Additionally, Plaintiff had an

x-ray of his knee, a meeting with another provider for his knee pain, an intra-articular injection, 

and finally an arthroscopic surgery on his left knee on September 1, 2023, which surgery revealed 

a horizontal tear of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus. Plaintiff had three post-operative 

visits that noted no complications following the surgery.

IV. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Motion for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment in favor of a party is appropriate when there “is no genuine dispute as 

to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(a); Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (“If there is a genuine 

dispute about material facts, summary judgment will not be granted.”). A party asserting that a 

fact cannot be disputed must support the assertion by 

citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, 

documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, 

stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, 

interrogatory answers, or other materials, or showing that the materials cited do 

not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party 

Case 1:23-cv-00421-JLT-EPG Document 67 Filed 01/16/25 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

27

28

7

cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). 

A party moving for summary judgment “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,’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex 

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). “Where the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need only prove that there is an 

absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s case.” In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 

F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010). If the moving party does so, “the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to designate specific facts demonstrating the existence of genuine issues for trial,” 

which is not a light burden, the party “must come forth with evidence from which a jury could 

reasonably render a verdict in the non-moving party’s favor.” Id.; see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986) (“The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the 

plaintiff’s position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably 

find for the plaintiff.”). “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the 

nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. 

Additionally, “[a] summary judgment motion cannot be defeated by relying solely on conclusory 

allegations unsupported by factual data.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

In reviewing the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court “must draw all 

reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Comite de Jornaleros 

de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2011). It need only 

draw inferences, however, where there is “evidence in the record . . . from which a reasonable 

inference . . . may be drawn”; the Court need not entertain inferences that are unsupported by fact. 

Celotex, 477 U.S. at 330 n. 2 (citation omitted). In reviewing a summary judgment motion, the 

Court may consider other materials in the record not cited to by the parties but is not required to 

do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 

1031 (9th Cir. 2001).

Case 1:23-cv-00421-JLT-EPG Document 67 Filed 01/16/25 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

27

28

8

B. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs

“[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an inmate 

must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 

1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). This requires Plaintiff 

to show (1) “a ‘serious medical need’ by demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition 

could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and 

(2) that “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Id. (quoting 

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992)) (citation and internal quotations 

marks omitted), overruled on other grounds by WMX Technologies v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th 

Cir. 1997) (en banc).

Deliberate indifference is established only where the defendant subjectively “knows of and 

disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 

(9th Cir. 2004) (emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Deliberate 

indifference can be established “by showing (a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a 

prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Jett, 439 F.3d 

at 1096 (citation omitted). Civil recklessness (failure “to act in the face of an unjustifiably high 

risk of harm that is either known or so obvious that it should be known”) is insufficient to 

establish an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 836-37 & n.5 

(1994) (citations omitted).

A difference of opinion between an inmate and prison medical personnel—or between 

medical professionals—regarding appropriate medical diagnosis and treatment is not enough to 

establish a deliberate indifference claim. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989); 

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004). Additionally, “a complaint that a 

physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid 

claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not 

become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 

106. To establish a difference of opinion rising to the level of deliberate indifference, a “plaintiff 

must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the 

circumstances.” Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996).

Case 1:23-cv-00421-JLT-EPG Document 67 Filed 01/16/25 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

27

28

9

V. ANALYSIS

In light of the above legal standards and undisputed facts, the Court now considers 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which argues that Plaintiff has no evidence to 

support his claim and the undisputed facts establish that Defendant provided extensive medical 

treatment for Plaintiff’s knee and thus was not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious

medical needs.3

Upon review, the Court concludes that Defendant has met Defendant’s initial burden of 

showing that there is an absence of evidence to support Plaintiff’s claims. As Defendant argues, 

the undisputed evidence shows that Defendant extensively treated Plaintiff’s knee injury, contrary 

to the assertions in the complaint that Plaintiff received essentially no treatment. Among other 

things, shortly after his knee injury, Plaintiff received treatment, including from Defendant. And 

throughout Plaintiff’s subsequent medical treatment and despite mostly normal examination 

findings, Defendant took Plaintiff’s complaints seriously and consistently saw him multiple times 

for his knee injury; ordered consultations with other providers; ordered x-rays, an MRI, and 

physical therapy; and referred him for an evaluation for orthopedic surgery, which surgery was 

ultimately performed. 

In light of the extensive treatment record establishing that Defendant was not deliberately 

indifferent to Plaintiff’s knee injury, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to designate specific evidence

demonstrating the existence of genuine issues for trial. However, Plaintiff has offered no evidence

in opposition to Defendant’s evidence, let alone evidence from which a jury could reasonably 

render a verdict in his favor. 

Accordingly, as the undisputed evidence does not support Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant 

was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, the Court will recommend that 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted and this case be dismissed. 

3 Under Local Rule 230(c), the Court construes Plaintiff’s “failure to file a timely opposition . . . as a 

nonopposition to the motion.” However, the Court will not recommend granting Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment solely because Plaintiff failed to file a response. Rather, consistent with the summary 

judgment standards discussed below, the Court will consider whether Defendant has sufficiently 

demonstrated that summary judgment is warranted. Cf. Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th 

Cir. 1993) (“A local rule that requires the entry of summary judgment simply because no papers opposing 

the motion are filed or served, and without regard to whether genuine issues of material fact exist, would 

be inconsistent with Rule 56, hence impermissible under Rule 83.”).

Case 1:23-cv-00421-JLT-EPG Document 67 Filed 01/16/25 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

27

28

10

VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

For the above reasons, there is not a genuine dispute of material fact and Defendant is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment 

(ECF No. 41) be granted, that judgment be entered in Defendant’s favor, and that the Clerk of 

Court be directed to close this case. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 

Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within 

fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 

(9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2025 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00421-JLT-EPG Document 67 Filed 01/16/25 Page 10 of 10