Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01499/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01499-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jason Amico
Plaintiff
Idalberto Zaldivar-Galves
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON AMICO,

Plaintiff,

v.

IDALBERTO ZALDIVAR-GALVES,

Defendant.

No. 1:22-cv-01499-SAB (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 

TO THIS ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE 

GRANTED

(ECF No. 36)

Plaintiff Jason Amico is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed September 

30, 2024.

I.

BACKGROUND

This action is proceeding against Defendant Dr. Zaldivar-Galves for deliberate 

indifference to a serious medical need.

Defendant filed an answer to the complaint on August 21, 2023. (ECF No. 26.) The 

Court issued the discovery and scheduling order on September 21, 2023. (ECF No. 30.) After 

receiving an extension of time to file a dispositive motion, Defendant filed a motion for summary 

Case 1:22-cv-01499-KES-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/18/24 Page 1 of 14
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

judgment on September 30, 2024, along with a request to seal exhibits attached to the motion. 

(ECF Nos. 35, 36.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on 

October 22, 2024, and Defendant filed a reply on November 5, 2024. (ECF Nos. 38, 39.) 

On November 7, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s request to seal Exhibits 9-14 of the 

Declaration of Alexandria Faura, Exhibits A-F of the Declaration of I. Zaldivar-Galves, and 

Exhibits A-B of the Declaration of J. Liang in support of Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment. (ECF No. 37.) 

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Any party may move for summary judgment, and the Court shall grant summary judgment 

if the movant shows that 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) (quotation marks omitted); 

Washington Mut. Inc. v. U.S., 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Each party’s position, 

whether it be that a fact is disputed or undisputed, must be supported by (1) citing to particular 

parts of materials in the record, including but not limited to depositions, documents, declarations, 

or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials cited do not establish the presence or absence of a 

genuine dispute or that the opposing party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) (quotation marks omitted). The Court may consider other materials in the 

record not cited to by the parties, but it is not required to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen 

v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001); accord Simmons v. 

Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010).

In judging the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court does not make 

credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 

F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks and citation omitted), and it must draw all 

inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether a genuine 

issue of material fact precludes entry of judgment, Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. 

City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and citation 

Case 1:22-cv-01499-KES-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/18/24 Page 2 of 14
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

omitted).

In arriving at these Findings and Recommendations, the Court carefully reviewed and 

considered all arguments, points and authorities, declarations, exhibits, statements of undisputed 

facts and responses thereto, if any, objections, and other papers filed by the parties. Omission of 

reference to an argument, document, paper, or objection is not to be construed to the effect that 

this Court did not consider the argument, document, paper, or objection. This Court thoroughly 

reviewed and considered the evidence it deemed admissible, material, and appropriate.

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Summary of Plaintiff’s Complaint

Defendant Doctor Zaldivar-Galves has been Plaintiff’s primary care physician for 

approximately 16 months. Doctor Zaldivar-Galves was aware that Plaintiff was in severe eye pain 

in both eyes and aware of the serious medical risks by ignoring, denying, and/or delaying medical 

treatment. Defendant reviewed Plaintiff’s medical records and possessed general knowledge of 

Plaintiff’s medical history. Defendant knew of the risk of injury to Plaintiff’s eye because Plaintiff 

continually informed him of the pain and request to see an ophthalmologist. Doctor ZaldivarGalves ignored Plaintiff’s complaints and the lack of treatment caused Plaintiff’s condition to 

worsen which resulted in continual pain in both eyes. 

B. Statement of Undisputed Facts1

1. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was in the custody of the California Department of

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Substance Abuse 

Treatment Facility and State Prison (SATF). (Declaration of Alexandra Faura (Faura Decl.) Ex. 

1, Pl. Dep. at 15:20-22.)

2. Defendant Zaldivar-Galves is a medical doctor, employed by CDCR as a medical 

doctor at SATF, and was Plaintiff’s primary care physician at all relevant times. (Declaration of 

I. Zaldivar-Galves (Zaldivar-Galves Decl.) ¶¶ 2, 5.)

///

1 Hereinafter referred to as “UF.” 

Case 1:22-cv-01499-KES-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/18/24 Page 3 of 14
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

3. Dr. Zaldivar-Galves was first assigned to be Plaintiff’s primary care physician 

beginning in July 2022. (Zaldivar-Galves Decl. ¶ 5.)

4. On July 4, 2022, Plaintiff submitted a CDCR 7362 Health Care Request Form 

(“CDCR 7362 form”), requesting to see nursing staff regarding “some headaches [he’s] been 

having.” (Faura Decl. Ex. 3.)

5. On July 6, 2022, Plaintiff was seen by nursing staff regarding his CDCR 7362 

form. During this appointment, Plaintiff reported that pain medication was not effective and 

requested an MRI. Following a physical examination by the nurse, Plaintiff did not present with 

any other symptoms other than a headache. (Faura Decl. Ex. 9.)

6. During this appointment, nursing staff referred Plaintiff to his primary care 

physician for a follow-up appointment. (Faura Decl. Ex. 9.)

7. On July 20, 2022, Dr. Zaldivar-Galves requested an order for a brain MRI without

contrast for Plaintiff. (Zaldivar-Galves Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. A.) 

8. Plaintiff submitted a CDCR 7362 form, dated July 25, 2022 requesting to see an

ophthalmologist to “get a clear vision of everything going on in [his] eyes.” (Faura Decl. Ex. 4.)

9. On July 25, 2022, Dr. Zaldivar-Galves ordered Plaintiff a referral to an optometry

consultation, as routine priority. (Zaldivar-Galves Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. A.) 

10. On August 19, 2022, Dr. Zaldivar-Galves saw Plaintiff for a follow-up medical 

appointment for evaluation of headache. (Zaldivar-Galves Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. B.)

11. At the August 19, 2022 appointment, Dr. Zaldivar-Galves offered Plaintiff a 

referral to an optometrist “for a possible visual disturbance” that could be the cause of the 

headache, but Plaintiff declined the consult. (Zaldivar-Galves Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. B.)

12. At the August 19, 2022 appointment, Dr. Zaldivar-Galves indicated that based on

Plaintiff’s symptoms “no intervention was needed for now” and recommended Plaintiff continued 

use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for pain, as needed. (Zaldivar-Galves 

Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. B.)

13. Plaintiff submitted a CDCR 7362 Health Care Request Form, dated September 4, 

2022, stating he was “having severe eye pain.” (Faura Decl. Ex. 5.)

Case 1:22-cv-01499-KES-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/18/24 Page 4 of 14
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

14. On September 8, 2022, Plaintiff was seen by a registered nurse and requested to

“to know if MRI of brain and optometry consult was ordered.” (Zaldivar-Galves Decl. ¶ 9; Faura 

Decl. Ex. 10.)

15. During this appointment, Plaintiff was notified the optometry and MRI consults 

were ordered on July 25, 2022. (Zaldivar-Galves Decl. ¶ 9; Faura Decl. Ex. 10.)

16. Plaintiff submitted a CDCR 7362, dated September 23, 2022, stating that he had 

been “having continuing pain in each of [his] eyes.” (Faura Decl. Ex. 6.)

17. On September 23, 2022, Plaintiff was seen by a registered nurse and inquired 

“about MRI and optometry app[ointment].” (Faura Decl. Ex. 11.)

18. At the September 23, 2022 appointment Plaintiff reported that his eye pain was 

intermittent or it “comes and goes.” (Faura Decl. Ex. 11.)

19. During the September 23, 2022 appointment Plaintiff was notified it could take up

to ninety days for his MRI and optometry appointments to be scheduled. Plaintiff testified during 

deposition that he was told it could take up to ninety days for his MRI and optometry 

appointments to be scheduled. Faura Decl. Ex. 1, Pl.’s Dep. at 59:10-17.)

20. Plaintiff reported presently being in pain during the September 23, 2022

appointment. (Zaldivar-Galves Decl. ¶ 9.)

21. On September 26, 2022, Dr. Zaldivar-Galves ordered a refill of 650 mg of 

acetaminophen for Plaintiff’s eye pain. (Zaldivar-Galves Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. C.)

22. The dosage of 650 mg of acetaminophen is currently the highest single-tablet

dosage available per CCHCS to prescribe before prescribing narcotic painkillers, which are 

controlled substances. (Zaldivar-Galves Decl. ¶ 9.)

23. On October 18, 2022, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Liang, an optometrist at SATF. 

(Declaration of J. Liang (Liang Decl.) ¶ 5.)

24. During this appointment, Plaintiff complained of irritation in his eyes, specifically

the feeling of a foreign body stuck in his eye. (Liang Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. A.)

25. Dr. Liang also performed a corneal stain test to determine whether Plaintiff had 

signs of corneal damage and found no damage to Plaintiff’s cornea. (Liang Decl. ¶ 7; Ex. A.)

Case 1:22-cv-01499-KES-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/18/24 Page 5 of 14
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

26. Dr. Liang observed slight conjunctival injection, or “blood shot eyes” in Plaintiff’s

right eye. (Liang Decl. ¶ 7; Ex. A.)

27. Dr. Liang diagnosed Plaintiff with an ocular allergy and dry eye. (Liang Decl. ¶ 7;

Ex. A.)

28. Dr. Liang prescribed Ketotifen and artificial tears. (Liang Decl. ¶ 7; Ex. A.)

29. On October 19, 2022, Dr. Zaldivar-Galves submitted an order for the Ketotifen 

and artificial tears and reviewed Dr. Liang’s notes from the optometry consultation. (ZaldivarGalves Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. D.)

30. On November 1, 2022, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Zaldivar-Galves for a follow-up

appointment. (Zaldivar-Galves Decl. ¶ 12, Ex. E.) 

31. On November 8, 2022, Plaintiff underwent a brain MRI without contrast. (Faura 

Decl. Ex. 14.)

32. The brain MRI results were normal. (Faura Decl. Ex. 14.)

33. Plaintiff submitted a CDCR 7362 dated December 24, 2022 indicating he was 

“having loss of vision in [his] left eye.” (Faura Decl. Ex. 7.)

34. Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Zaldivar-Galves on December 27, 2022, for a follow-up 

appointment in relation to the December 24 CDCR 7362 form. (Zaldivar-Galves Decl. ¶ 14; 

Faura Decl. Ex. 12.)

35. During the December 27 appointment, Plaintiff reported he did “not want to be

referred to optometry, and just wants it documented in his file that his vision has decreased.” 

Plaintiff “refused to elaborate why he did not want the optometry referral or referral to be seen by 

the doctor.” (Zaldivar-Galves Decl. ¶ 14; Faura Decl. Ex. 12.)

36. During this appointment, a visual acuity test was performed, and Plaintiff’s left 

eye was measuring at 20/100, his right eye at 20/40, but both eyes at 20/30. (Zaldivar-Galves 

Decl. ¶ 14; Faura Decl. Ex. 12.)

37. Following this appointment, Dr. Zaldivar-Galves referred Plaintiff for a 

subsequent optometry consult and told Plaintiff to contact him if the condition did not improve. 

(Zaldivar-Galves Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. F.)

Case 1:22-cv-01499-KES-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/18/24 Page 6 of 14
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

38. On January 10, 2023, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Zaldivar-Galves. (Zaldivar-Galves

Decl. ¶ 15; Faura Decl. Ex. 13.)

39. On January 10, 2023, Plaintiff’s prescriptions for Ketotifen and artificial tears 

were refilled. (Zaldivar-Galves Decl. ¶ 15.)

40. On February 22, 2023, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Liang, the optometrist, for a 

follow-up appointment. (Liang Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. B.)

41. During the February 22 appointment, Plaintiff’s eyes were examined, and Dr.

Liang diagnosed Plaintiff with 20/20 vision and extremely mild farsightedness in both eyes. 

(Liang Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. B.)

42. Dr. Liang indicated that Plaintiff could opt to receive prescription glasses, but due

to how mild his farsightedness was the prescription was not required. (Liang Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. B.)

43. On February 22, 2023, Dr. Liang ordered Plaintiff new glasses, per his request.

(Liang Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. B.)

44. Plaintiff testified that he disagreed with the course of treatment that the optometrist

Dr. Liang prescribed for him. (Faura Decl. Ex. 1, Pl.’s Dep. at 15:20-22).

45. Plaintiff testified during his deposition that Dr. Zaldivar-Galves ordering a brain 

MRI and requesting an optometry consult was insufficient treatment for his eye pain. (Faura 

Decl. Ex. 1, Pl.’s Dep. at 74:24-75:04).

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Need

Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Zaldivar-Galves denied Plaintiff access to medical care and 

treatment for his eye pain for sixteen months. (ECF No. 11 at 6.) Plaintiff contends Dr. ZaldivarGalves was aware of Plaintiff’s eye pain but refused to treat him. (Id. at 7.) 

Defendant argues he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because he was not 

deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs. 

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison 

medical treatment, an inmate must show “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” 

Case 1:22-cv-01499-KES-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/18/24 Page 7 of 14
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

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). In the Ninth Circuit, the test for deliberate 

indifference consists of two parts. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal 

citations omitted). First, the plaintiff must show 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. Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted.) Second the plaintiff 

must show that the defendant's response to the need was deliberately indifferent. Id. The second 

prong is satisfied 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.” Id. 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.” Id. (internal citations 

omitted). However, an inadvertent or negligent failure to provide adequate medical care alone 

does not state a claim under § 1983. Id.

“A difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner – or between medical 

professionals – concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to deliberate 

indifference.” Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 987 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Sanchez v. Vild, 891 

F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 

1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122-23 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(citing Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1986). Rather, Plaintiff “must show that 

the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances 

and that the defendants chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [his] 

health.” Snow, 681 F.3d at 988 (citing Jackson, 90 F.3d at 332) (internal quotation marks 

omitted).). In addition, “[m]edical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely 

because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Snow, 681 F.3d at 987-88, overruled in 

part on other grounds, Peralta, 744 F.3d at 1082-83; Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.

1. Serious Medical Need

Defendant does not explicitly dispute that Plaintiff was experiencing a serious medical 

need during the time he was Plaintiff's primary care physician from July 2022 to January 2023. 

The Court thus assumes for purposes of this motion that Plaintiff presented with a serious

Case 1:22-cv-01499-KES-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/18/24 Page 8 of 14
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

medical need during the relevant time. 

2. Deliberate Indifference to Medical Need

Here, it is undisputed that Dr. Zaldivar-Galves saw Plaintiff on July 20, 2022, August 19,

2022, November 1, 2022, December 27, 2022, and January 10, 2023. (UF 7, 10-12, 30, 34-36, 

38.) During the first examinations in July and August, Dr. Zaldivar-Galves ordered an MRI 

imaging and a referral to an optometrist—despite Plaintiff’s declination, and recommended that 

Plaintiff continue with use of NSAIDs for any pain. (UF 7, 11-12.) Plaintiff was seen at the 

Treatment and Triage Area (TTA) on September 23, 2022, at expressed experiencing pain in his 

eyes. (UF 16-20.) On September 26, 2022, Dr. Zaldivar-Galves ordered a refill of 650 mg of 

acetaminophen for Plaintiff’s eye pain. (UF 21.) The dosage of 650 mg of acetaminophen is 

currently the highest single-tablet dosage available per CCHCS to prescribe before prescribing 

narcotic painkillers, which are controlled substances. (UF 22.) Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Liang, 

the optometrist, on October 18, 2022, and complained of irritation in his eyes, specifically the 

feeling of a foreign body stuck in his eye. (UF 23-24.) Dr. Liang also performed a corneal stain 

test to determine whether Plaintiff had signs of corneal damage and found no damage to 

Plaintiff’s cornea. (UF 25.) Dr. Liang observed slight conjunctival injection, or “blood shot 

eyes” in Plaintiff’s right eye. (UF 26.) Dr. Liang diagnosed Plaintiff with an ocular allergy and 

dry eye. (UF 27.) Dr. Liang prescribed Ketotifen and artificial tears. (UF 28.) On October 19, 

2022, Dr. Zaldivar-Galves submitted an order for the Ketotifen and artificial tears and reviewed 

Dr. Liang’s notes from the optometry consultation. (UF 29.) On November 8, 2022, Plaintiff 

underwent a brain MRI without contrast. (UF 31.) The brain MRI results were normal. (UF 32.)

Based on the undisputed evidence, Dr. Zaldivar-Galves has met his initial burden of proof 

in demonstrating that he was not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff as he assessed and provided 

repeated medical care from his initial assignment as Plaintiff’s primary care physician. The 

burden now shifts to Plaintiff “to designate specific facts demonstrating the existence of genuine 

issues for trial.” In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 

477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). The non-moving party must “show more than the mere existence of a 

scintilla of evidence.” Id. (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)). 

Case 1:22-cv-01499-KES-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/18/24 Page 9 of 14
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

In his opposition, Plaintiff attempts to create genuine issues of material fact by asserting 

that Dr. Zaldivar-Galves falsified his medical records, claiming Plaintiff did not deny vision 

problems, and did not deny pain, headaches or eye symptoms. However, Plaintiff fails to submit 

evidence to substantiate each allegation. Conclusory and speculative allegations, without any 

evidentiary support, are insufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact. FTC v. Publ’g Clearing 

House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1997) (as amended) (“A conclusory, self-serving 

affidavit, lacking detailed facts and any supporting evidence, is insufficient to create a genuine 

issue of material fact.”). Plaintiff presents no evidence that Dr. Zaldivar-Galvez did not see 

Plaintiff as reflected in his treatment notes, or that he did not pursue the course of treatment 

reflected in the records. In fact, Plaintiff acknowledges that he was seen by Dr. Zaldavir-Galves 

at each of the appointments indicated in the medical records, Plaintiff received referral to an 

optometrist and for an MRI, and received his prescription for pain medication and eye drops. 

(ECF No. 38 at 3-4.) Plaintiff must present competent admissible evidence demonstrating that 

the doctor’s progress notes are false in material respects as related to the elements of his Eighth 

Amendment claim. Plaintiff, however, does not offer any evidence to support his claims that his 

medical records were falsified or that Dr. Zaldavir-Galves did not correctly document Plaintiff’s 

symptoms. Plaintiff’s unsupported and conclusory arguments do not create a material issue of 

fact and are insufficient to defeat summary judgment. See Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984; Arpin v. 

Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 922 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(c)(2). In addition, the Court is not required to accept Plaintiff’s self-serving statements where 

they are contradicted by the doctor’s medical records, as well as the medical records of other 

medical staff and specialists, and test results. See Toscano v. Embree, No. C 05-4113 SI (pr), 

2007 WL 2753366, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2007) (noting a plaintiff cannot create a triable 

issue of fact by simply misrepresenting the contents of a document). 

Plaintiff further asserts that Dr. Zaldivar-Galves delayed his referral to an optometrist 

because it was scheduled for routine priority, despite knowledge of Plaintiff’s alleged loss of 

vision. However, even if Dr. Zaldavir-Galves should have ordered the optometry consult or MRI 

sooner, Plaintiff has presented no evidence of any harm by the alleged delay in care. Hallett v. 

Case 1:22-cv-01499-KES-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/18/24 Page 10 of 14
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

11

Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2008); Shapley v. Nevada Board of State Prison Comm’rs, 

766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir.1985) (when a claim alleges only a delay in care, a prisoner cannot 

make a claim for deliberate medical indifference unless the delay was harmful); Wood v. 

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990) (a delay in treatment must have caused 

“substantial harm” in order to “constitute an eighth amendment violation”). Plaintiff contends 

that Dr. Zaldivar-Galves made a routine referral to an optometrist on August 19, 2022, which was 

not fulfilled until October 28, 2022, and Plaintiff knew he was losing vision in both his eyes. 

(ECF No. 38 at 13.) Although Plaintiff contends that on November 1, 2022, he did not deny any 

headache or eye symptoms, it is undisputed that Dr. Zaldavir-Galves had previously referred 

Plaintiff to an optometrist and immediately referred Plaintiff for second optometry consult on 

December 27, 2022. (UF 37.) Plaintiff had a follow-up appointment with Dr. Zaldivar-Galves a 

few weeks after the December appointment, and his prescriptions for Ketotifen and artificial tears 

were refilled. (UF 39.) Then, on February 22, 2023, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Liang, the 

optometrist, for a follow-up. (UF 40.) During the February 22 appointment, Plaintiff’s eyes were 

examined, and Dr. Liang diagnosed Plaintiff with 20/20 vision and extremely mild farsightedness 

in both eyes. (UF 41.) Dr. Liang indicated that Plaintiff could opt to receive prescription glasses, 

but due to how mild his farsightedness was the prescription was not required. (UF 42.) Dr. Liang 

ordered Plaintiff new glasses, per his request. (UF 43.) Thus, it is undisputed that Dr. Liang’s 

examination in February 2023 revealed that Plaintiff’s vision was essentially normal with some 

mild farsightedness, which did not require the use of prescription lenses. Plaintiff presents no 

medical evidence that any change in the one-and-a-half month period preceding this appointment 

would have changed this determination; nor is there any evidence that Plaintiff suffered any 

adverse medical effects to his eyes. In addition, Plaintiff complains about the lack of a referral to 

an ”eye specialist” but fails to explain or present evidence to demonstrate how a referral to an 

optometrist does not meet such request or was inappropriate. (ECF No. 38 at 10.) 

While Plaintiff may have disagreed with Dr. Zaldivar-Galves course of treatment, a mere 

difference of opinion regarding medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference. 

Snow, 681 F.3d at 987. Plaintiff has not presented any medical evidence that the diagnoses of 

Case 1:22-cv-01499-KES-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/18/24 Page 11 of 14
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

12

ocular allergies and prescriptions of acetaminophen, ketotifen, and artificial tears were medically 

unacceptable and chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to Plaintiff’s health. Indeed, 

Plaintiff acknowledges that Dr. Liang diagnosed him with dry eyes and an ocular allergy and 

there were no major changes to his eyesight. (ECF No. 38 at 4-5.) Accordingly, Plaintiff has not 

established that Dr. Zaldivar-Galves acted with deliberate indifference under the Eighth 

Amendment and summary judgment should be granted. 

B. Qualified Immunity

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 

violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would 

have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). In general, qualified immunity 

protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. 

Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986). In ruling upon the issue of qualified immunity, the initial 

inquiry is whether, taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, the facts 

alleged show the defendant's conduct violated a constitutional right. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 

194, 201 (2001). If a violation can be made out, the next step is to ask whether the right was 

clearly established. Id. This inquiry “must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the 

case, not as a broad general proposition ....” Id. “[T]he right the official is alleged to have violated 

must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: 

The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand 

that what he is doing violates that right.” Id. at 202 (citation omitted). Thus, the final step in the 

analysis is to determine whether a reasonable officer in similar circumstances would have thought 

his conduct violated the alleged right. Id. at 205.

When identifying the right allegedly violated, the court must define the right more 

narrowly than the constitutional provision guaranteeing the right, but more broadly than the 

factual circumstances surrounding the alleged violation. See Kelly v. Borg, 60 F.3d 664, 667 (9th 

Cir. 1995). For a right to be clearly established, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently 

clear that a reasonable official would understand [that] what [the official] is doing violates the 

right.” See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). Ordinarily, once the court 

Case 1:22-cv-01499-KES-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/18/24 Page 12 of 14
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

13

concludes that a right was clearly established, an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity 

because a reasonably competent public official is charged with knowing the law governing his 

conduct. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19. However, even if the plaintiff has alleged a violation of 

a clearly established right, the government official is entitled to qualified immunity if he could 

have “... reasonably but mistakenly believed that his ... conduct did not violate the right.” Jackson 

v. City of Bremerton, 268 F.3d 646, 651 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Saucier, 533 U.S. at 205.

Qualified immunity shields government officials who, in the face of clearly established 

law, acted reasonably but nonetheless violated some constitutional right. Here, Dr. ZaldivarGalves treated Plaintiff on a continuous basis, ordered radiological imaging, referred him to 

specialists, and prescribed medications to treat his symptoms and conditions. The undisputed 

evidence shows the Defendants did not violate Plaintiff's rights. Therefore, qualified immunity is 

not applicable. However, even if the Court concluded that Defendant did violate a clearly 

established right, Defendant would be entitled to qualified immunity because the evidence shows 

that Defendant Dr. Zaldivar-Galves acted reasonably by appropriately treating Plaintiff’s vision 

concerns.

IV.

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly 

assign a District Judge to this order.

Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment filed on September 30, 2024, (ECF No. 26), should be granted and judgment should be 

entered in favor of Defendant Dr. Zaldivar-Galves. 

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) 

days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written 

objections with the Court, limited to 15 pages in length, including exhibits. The document should 

be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 

Case 1:22-cv-01499-KES-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/18/24 Page 13 of 14
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

14

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: December 18, 2024 

STANLEY A. BOONE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:22-cv-01499-KES-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/18/24 Page 14 of 14