IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

STEPHEN ERIC JONES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KLAMATH COUNTY JAIL; LT. 

COMMANDER DAVIDSON; 

SGT. COLLINS, VALERIE NEESE; 

CARLA THOMAS; and 

DR. KNUDSEN, 

Defendants. 

STEPHEN ERIC JONES 

OSH Bird 2 

2600 Center Street N.E. 

Salem, OR 97301 

Plaintiff, Pro Se 

GERALD L. WARREN 

1:15-CV-01533-BR 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Law Office of Gerald L. Warren and Associates 

901 Capitol Street N.E. 

Salem, OR 97301 

(503) 480-7252 

Attorneys for Defendants Lt. Commander Davidson, 

Sgt. Collins, Valerie Neese, and Carla Thomas 1 

1 Defendant Klamath County Jail was dismissed from this 

matter with prejudice on August 24, 2015. Defendant Knudsen was 

dismissed from this matter without prejudice on December 30, 

2016. 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-01533-BR Document 47 Filed 01/13/17 Page 1 of 11
BROWN, Judge. 

This matter comes before the Court on County Defendants' 

Motion (#32) for Summary Judgment. For the reasons that follow, 

the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion and DISMISSES with prejudice 

Plaintiff's claims against County Defendants. 

BACKGROUND 

On August 13, 2015, Plaintiff Stephen Eric Jones filed a Pro 

Se Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he alleged 

claims against Klamath County Jail and Lt. Commander Davidson for 

denial of adequate medical care during Plaintiff's pretrial 

detention at Klamath County Jail. 

On August 24, 2015, the Court entered an Order in which it 

dismissed Plaintiff's claims against Klamath County Jail and 

Lt. Commander Davidson with leave to file an Amended Complaint 

stating claims against Lt. Commander Davidson. 

On October 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint 

against Lt. Commander Davidson, Sgt. Collins, Val, 2 Carla Thomas, 

and Dr. Knudsen alleging claims under § 1983 for denial of 

adequate medical care during Plaintiff's pretrial detention at 

Klamath County Jail and denial of access to the law library. 

On August 3, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary 

2 In their Motion for Summary Judgment Defendants identify 

this Defendant as Valerie Neese. 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-01533-BR Document 47 Filed 01/13/17 Page 2 of 11
Judgment. 

On August 4, 2016, the Court issued a Summary Judgment 

Advice Notice to Plaintiff advising him that if he did not submit 

admissible evidence in opposition to Defendants' Motion for 

Summary Judgment, summary judgment could be entered against him. 

The Court took Defendants' Motion under advisement on 

November 14, 2016. 

STANDARDS 

Summary judgment 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." Washington Mut. Ins. v. United 

States, 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9~ Cir. 2011). See also Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party must show the absence of a 

dispute as to a material fact. Rivera v. Philip Morris, Inc., 

395 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9~ Cir. 2005). In response to a properly 

supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must 

go beyond the pleadings and show there is a genuine dispute as to 

a material fact for trial. Id. "This burden is not a light one 

The non-moving party must do more than show there is 

some 'metaphysical doubt' as to the material facts at issue." In 

re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(citation omitted). 

A dispute as to a material fact is genuine "if the evidence 

3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-01533-BR Document 47 Filed 01/13/17 Page 3 of 11
is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the 

nonmoving party." Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 

1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). The court must draw all 

reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Sluimer 

v. Verity, Inc., 606 F.3d 584, 587 (9th Cir. 2010). "Summary 

judgment cannot be granted where contrary inferences may be drawn 

from the evidence as to material issues." Easter v. Am. W. Fin., 

381 F.3d 948, 957 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). A "mere 

disagreement or bald assertion" that a genuine dispute as to a 

material fact exists "will not preclude the grant of summary 

judgment." Deering v. Lassen Cmty. Coll. Dist., No. 2:07-CV1521-JAM-DAD, 2011 WL 202797, at *2 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 20, 2011) 

(citing Harper v. Wallingford, 877 F.2d 728, 731 (9th Cir. 

1989)). When the nonmoving party's claims are factually 

implausible, that party must "come forward with more persuasive 

evidence than otherwise would be necessary." LVRC Holdings LLC 

v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127, 1137 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). 

The substantive law governing a claim or a defense 

determines whether a fact is material. Miller v. Glenn Miller 

Prod., Inc., 454 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir. 2006). If the 

resolution of a factual dispute would not affect the outcome of 

the claim, the court may grant summary judgment. Id. 

4 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-01533-BR Document 47 Filed 01/13/17 Page 4 of 11
DISCUSSION 

As noted, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants in his 

Amended Complaint for denial of adequate medical care during 

Plaintiff's pretrial detention at Klamath County Jail and for 

denial of access to the law library. 

judgment on both claims. 

Defendants move for summary 

I. Plaintiff's claim for denial of adequate medical care. 

Plaintiff alleges he was denied adequate medical care when 

he was a pretrial detainee at Klamath County Jail. Specifically, 

Plaintiff asserts Defendants were deliberately indifferent to 

Plaintiff's serious medical needs when they did not permit him to 

use leg braces during his time at Klamath County Jail. 

A. Background 

On October 2, 2014, Plaintiff was booked into the 

Klamath County Jail. At the time of his booking Plaintiff was 

wearing "ACL type braces" on his legs that "contained items which 

could present security issues for the jail." Deel. of Valerie 

Neese at ~ 2. Plaintiff advised Defendants that he had been 

treated at the Klamath County Orthopedic Clinic and that he 

required the braces. Defendant Neese contacted Klamath County 

Orthopedic Clinic and requested Plaintiff's medical information 

in order to evaluate whether to permit Plaintiff to retain the 

braces. Plaintiff, however, was discharged from Klamath County 

Jail on October 3, 2014, before Neese received a response from 

5 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-01533-BR Document 47 Filed 01/13/17 Page 5 of 11
the Orthopedic Clinic about Plaintiff's braces. 

On October 7, 2014, Plaintiff was again booked into the 

Klamath County Jail, but he was not wearing leg braces. 

On November 6, 2014, Plaintiff sent a Medical Request Form 

asking for a set of leg braces and advising Defendants to contact 

the Klamath County Orthopedic Clinic about his need for braces. 

On Friday, November 7, 2014, Neese sent a Request of 

Information to Klamath County Orthopedic Clinic asking about 

Plaintiff's need for braces. 

On Monday, November 10, 2014, Defendant Carla Thomas, a 

medical technician at Klamath County Jail, sent a Request of 

Information to Klamath County Orthopedic Clinic asking whether 

Plaintiff had a doctor's order to wear leg braces. 

On November 11, 2014, Klamath County Orthopedic Clinic 

advised Thomas that Plaintiff's "leg braces were optional [and] 

not medically required." Deel. of Carla Thomas at ~ 4. Neese 

responded to Plaintiff regarding his Medical Request Form and 

advised Plaintiff that his doctor told Defendants that 

Plaintiff's leg braces were not medically necessary. 

Defendant Lt. Commander Davidson did not permit Plaintiff to 

use leg braces because they presented safety and security 

concerns and they were not medically necessary. 

At some point Plaintiff sent a letter to Dr. Knudsen 

regarding his leg braces. On January 6, 2015, Dr. Knudsen 

6 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-01533-BR Document 47 Filed 01/13/17 Page 6 of 11
contacted Thomas about Plaintiff's request for leg braces. 

Dr. Knudsen advised Thomas that "he had thoroughly reviewed 

[Plaintiff's] medical records and that nothing suggested that 

metal leg braces were medically required." Thomas Deel. at 

'!I 5. Dr. Knudsen advised Thomas that Plaintiff could wear 

neoprene knee wraps, but they were not required and he had not 

ordered them for Plaintiff. 

On March 5, 2015, Plaintiff was transferred from Klamath 

County Jail to the Oregon State Hospital. When Plaintiff 

returned to Klamath County Jail on May 21, 2015, he was wearing 

neoprene knee wraps given to him at the hospital. Plaintiff was 

permitted to continue to wear the neoprene knee wraps at the 

jail. 

B. Standards 

Because Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at all 

relevant times, the Court analyzes his claims under the 

Fourteenth Amendment rather than under the Eighth Amendment. See 

Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1241 (9th 

Cir. 2010) ("We have long analyzed claims that correction facility 

officials violated pretrial detainees' constitutional rights by 

failing to address their medical needs . under [the] 

'deliberate indifference' standard" of the Fourteenth 

Amendment.). See Frost v. Agnos, 152 F. 3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 

1998) ("Pretrial detainees' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment 

7 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-01533-BR Document 47 Filed 01/13/17 Page 7 of 11
are comparable to prisoners' rights under the Eighth Amendment, 

[and, therefore, the Court] applies the same standards.''). The 

Ninth Circuit, however, has also stated "because the contours of 

the Eighth Amendment are more defined, Eighth Amendment 

jurisprudence may provide helpful guidance as to the standards to 

be applied [to Fourteenth Amendment analysis]." Hydrick v. 

Hunter, 500 F. 3d 978, 998 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs is a 

cognizable claim for violation of the proscription against cruel 

and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 

(1976). See also Actkinson v. Vargo, 284 F. App'x 469, 472 (9th 

Cir. 2008). 

To sustain [a] deliberate indifference claim, [a 

plaintiff must] meet the following test: "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. Second, the plaintiff must show the 

defendant's response to the need was deliberately 

indifferent." 

Peralta v. Dillard, No. 09-55907, 2013 WL 57893, at *3 (9th Cir. 

Jan. 7, 2013) (quoting Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th 

Cir. 2006)). To satisfy the second prong (i.e., that defendant's 

response to the need was deliberately indifferent), a plaintiff 

must show "'(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. (quoting Jett, 439 F. 3d at 1096). 

8 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-01533-BR Document 47 Filed 01/13/17 Page 8 of 11
Deliberate indifference may be established by showing that prison 

officials deny, delay, or intentionally interfere with medical 

treatment or it may be demonstrated by the way prison officials 

provide medical care. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. 

"Mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical 

condition, without more, does not violate a prisoner's Eighth 

Amendment rights." Toguchi v. Chung, 391F.3d1051, 1057 (9th 

Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). See also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 

F.3d 1113, 1122 (9~ Cir. 2012) ("Medical malpractice does not 

become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a 

prisoner.") . In addition, "a plaintiff's showing of nothing more 

than a difference of medical opinion as to the need to pursue one 

course of treatment over another [is] insufficient, as a matter 

of law, to establish deliberate indifference." Wilhelm, 680 F.3d 

at 1122 (quotation omitted) . 

C. Analysis 

Plaintiff fails to establish on this record that 

Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious 

medical needs; i.e., Plaintiff does not point to any evidence in 

the record that establishes any medical professional prescribed 

leg braces for Plaintiff or that leg braces were medically 

necessary. At best, Plaintiff has established he disagrees with 

"the need to pursue one course of treatment over another," which 

is "insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish deliberate 

9 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-01533-BR Document 47 Filed 01/13/17 Page 9 of 11
indifference." Wilhelm, 680 F. 3d at 1122. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to 

Plaintiff, the Court finds no reasonable juror could conclude on 

this record that Defendants' conduct constituted deliberate 

indifference to a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff's health. 

Plaintiff, therefore, has not established Defendants violated 

Plaintiff's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's Motion for 

Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's claim for denial of adequate 

medical care. 

II. Plaintiff's claim for denial of access to the law library. 

Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his right of access to 

courts when they denied him access to the law library in a manner 

that is unspecified in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. 

"Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to courts 

guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment" that may be met by access 

to a law library. Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir. 

1994). Hebbe v. Pilar, 627 F. 3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (same). 

A plaintiff alleging a claim of denial of access to justice must 

have some actual injury. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 352 

(1996). See also Evans v. El Dorado Hill, 457 F. App'x 618, 619 

(9th Cir. 2011) (same). 

In his Amended Complaint Plaintiff does not set out any 

facts to support his claim for denial of access to the law 

10 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-01533-BR Document 47 Filed 01/13/17 Page 10 of 11
library. The record reflects Plaintiff sent one kite requesting 

access to the Klamath County Jail's law library on October 12, 

2015. On October 13, 2015, Lt. Commander Davidson granted 

Plaintiff's request and permitted him to "go to the law library 

during his out time." Deel. of Jeanette Davison, Ex. 4 

at 1. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to 

Plaintiff, the Court finds no reasonable juror could conclude on 

this record that Defendants denied him access to the law library. 

Plaintiff, therefore, has not established Defendants violated 

Plaintiff's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's Motion for 

Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Claim for denial of access to 

the law library. 

CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS County Defendants' 

Motion (#32) for Summary Judgment and DISMISSES with prejudice 

Plaintiff's claims against County Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 13th day of January, 2017. 

United States District Judge 

11 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-01533-BR Document 47 Filed 01/13/17 Page 11 of 11