Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00915/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00915-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Lee Taylor
Plaintiff
Laura Thomas
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH LEE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAURA THOMAS,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-00915-VC (PR)

ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AND DISMISSING NEGLIGENCE

CLAIM WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO 

FILING IN STATE COURT

Re: Dkt. No. 22

Each side is familiar with the other's allegations and arguments, so the Court does not 

repeat them here. Thomas's motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to the Eighth 

Amendment claim. The Court accepts as true for purposes of this motion Taylor's allegation that, 

at his February 11, 2013 meeting with Thomas, he told her that he was bleeding and that aspirin 

was the cause of his bleeding. Thomas continued all Taylor’s medications, including aspirin, and 

ordered updated blood work. In taking this action, Thomas was on notice that Taylor’s vital signs 

were normal, that his Framingham score indicated a high risk of heart attack, and that all of his 

past blood work was in the normal range. Two days later, as a result of the blood work Thomas 

ordered, Taylor’s doctors became aware of his abnormally low blood count and they immediately 

responded by sending him to Sutter Coast Hospital for treatment. 

This evidence does not raise a genuine dispute of material fact about whether Thomas was 

deliberately indifferent to Taylor's serious medical needs in continuing the aspirin prescription 

when she saw Taylor. Although (viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Taylor) Thomas 

ignored Taylor’s statements about his bleeding and aspirin, she did not intentionally deny, delay or 

interfere with his treatment. Thomas continued to prescribe aspirin based on Taylor's high heart 

attack risk; for his bleeding hemorrhoids, Thomas ordered blood work. That Thomas declined 

Taylor's request to discontinue his aspirin amounts to a difference of opinion about whether he 

should have continued to take aspirin, weighing his complaints of bleeding against his heart 

condition. It does not constitute deliberate indifference. See Franklin v. Oregon State Welfare 

Case 3:14-cv-00915-VC Document 35 Filed 08/13/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

Division, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (difference of opinion between a prisoner patient 

and medical professional regarding treatment does not give rise to deliberate indifference). And 

even if Thomas should have realized that aspirin was causing Taylor’s bleeding (an issue about 

which the Court expresses no opinion), her failure to discontinue it based on this one visit, when 

all Taylor’s previous blood tests had been normal, would at most amount to negligence, not 

deliberate indifference. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835-36 (1994). 

Although federal courts have supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under 28 

U.S.C. § 1367(a), they may decline to exercise it under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Acri v. Varian 

Associates, Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997). Because summary judgment has been 

granted to Thomas on the one federal claim in this case, the Court declines to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over Taylor’s state law negligence claim. See United Mine Workers of 

Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 

(1988); Bryant v. Adventist Health Sys. West, 289 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2002). This claim is 

dismissed without prejudice to filing it in state court.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1. The motion for summary judgment is granted, in part. Summary judgment on the 

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim is granted in favor of Thomas.

2. The medical malpractice claim is dismissed without prejudice to filing in state court.

3. This order terminates docket number 22.

4. The Clerk shall enter a separate judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2015

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00915-VC Document 35 Filed 08/13/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH LEE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAURA THOMAS,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-00915-VC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on August 13, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Kenneth Lee Taylor ID: J-89634

Pelican Bay State Prison SHU D9-121 Low

PO Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95532 

Dated: August 13, 2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Kristen Melen, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable VINCE CHHABRIA

Case 3:14-cv-00915-VC Document 35 Filed 08/13/15 Page 3 of 3