Professional Documents
Culture Documents
9 INTRODUCTION
10 On March 23, 2007, Plaintiff Isiah Lucas, Jr., a state
For the Northern District of California
2
Case4:07-cv-01673-CW Document82 Filed03/30/11 Page3 of 21
3
Case4:07-cv-01673-CW Document82 Filed03/30/11 Page4 of 21
11 at 6-7.)
United States District Court
4
Case4:07-cv-01673-CW Document82 Filed03/30/11 Page5 of 21
5
Case4:07-cv-01673-CW Document82 Filed03/30/11 Page6 of 21
12 Eisenberg v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 815 F.2d 1285, 1288-89 (9th Cir.
13 1987).
14 The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no
15 material factual dispute; therefore, the Court must regard as true
16 the opposing party's evidence, if it is supported by affidavits or
17 other evidentiary material. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Eisenberg,
18 815 F.2d at 1289. The Court must draw all reasonable inferences in
19 favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.
20 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
21 587 (1986); Intel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 952 F.2d
22 1551, 1558 (9th Cir. 1991).
23 Material facts which would preclude entry of summary judgment
24 are those which, under applicable substantive law, may affect the
25 outcome of the case. The substantive law will identify which facts
26 are material. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
27 (1986).
28 Where the moving party does not bear the burden of proof on an
6
Case4:07-cv-01673-CW Document82 Filed03/30/11 Page7 of 21
7
Case4:07-cv-01673-CW Document82 Filed03/30/11 Page8 of 21
8
Case4:07-cv-01673-CW Document82 Filed03/30/11 Page9 of 21
11 (1) Defendants have relied on Plaintiff's lower bunk chrono and his
United States District Court
9
Case4:07-cv-01673-CW Document82 Filed03/30/11 Page10 of 21
10
Case4:07-cv-01673-CW Document82 Filed03/30/11 Page11 of 21
1 v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir.
2 1985). A defendant's actions need not be "egregious" nor need they
3 result in "significant injury" in order to establish a violation of
4 the prisoner's federal constitutional rights, McGuckin, 974 F.2d at
5 1059; however, the existence of serious harm tends to support an
6 inmate's deliberate indifference claim. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d
7 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006).
8 In order to establish deliberate indifference, Plaintiff must
9 show he had serious medical needs. Plaintiff alleges that while he
10 was assigned to an "upper tier/upper bunk," his back and knee pain
For the Northern District of California
12 that Plaintiff did not have any serious medical needs because he
13 was not exposed "to a societally intolerable risk of harm." (Mot.
14 for Summ. J. at 8.) If Plaintiff's assignment "actually had
15 caused, or posed a genuine risk of, such harm," Defendants contend,
16 "Plaintiff could simply have put his mattress on the floor and
17 slept there." (Id.) Defendants also argue Plaintiff "tacitly
18 confirmed the absence of a 'societally intolerable risk' by
19 admitting he never even asked his cellmate to switch bunks." (Id.)
20 Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff "confirmed his claim's
21 untenability through his inability to articulate what ostensibly
22 significant problem his upper bunk assignment supposedly caused or
23 could have caused." (Id. (citing Pl.'s Dep., 29:7-9; 30:22-24;
24 41:20-21).) Rather, Plaintiff "repeatedly alluded to mere
25 'stiffness.'" (Id.)
26
The Court must construe the evidence and the inferences to be
27
drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.
28
11
Case4:07-cv-01673-CW Document82 Filed03/30/11 Page12 of 21
1 T.W. Elec. Serv. Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d
2 626, 631 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff's allegations could support an
3 inference and conclusion that the failure to assign him to a "lower
4 bunk/lower tier" pursuant to his lower bunk chrono resulted in the
5 "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." McGuckin, 974 F.2d at
6 1059. Therefore, the Court assumes without deciding that Plaintiff
7 had serious medical needs.
8 In order to establish deliberate indifference, Plaintiff also
9 must show that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his
10 serious medical needs. Therefore, the Court will consider his
For the Northern District of California
15
Plaintiff alleges Defendants Knedler, McGriff, Childers,
16
Lopez, Miranda and Silva were deliberately indifferent to his
17
serious medical needs because, although he informed these prison
18
officials of his need for a "lower bunk/lower tier" due to his back
19
and neck pain, they did not assign him to a lower bunk. (Compl. at
20
5 n.1, 6, 8.)
21
Defendants Knedler, McGriff, Childers and Lopez allege that,
22
although they do not specifically remember Plaintiff, they never
23
consciously disregarded any substantial risk or serious harm that
24
Plaintiff may have faced. (Knedler Decl. ¶ 6; McGriff Decl. ¶ 2;
25
Childers Decl. ¶ 2; Lopez Decl. ¶ 2.) They further allege that if
26
an inmate complained that his "lower bunk/lower tier" chrono was
27
not being recognized, it would generally not signal the inmate
28
12
Case4:07-cv-01673-CW Document82 Filed03/30/11 Page13 of 21
13
Case4:07-cv-01673-CW Document82 Filed03/30/11 Page14 of 21
1 bunk would cause him anything more than discomfort. (Silva Decl.
2 ¶ 9; Miranda Decl. ¶ 11.) Defendant Miranda alleges he had no
3 authority to grant Plaintiff's appeal because of the lower bunk
4 shortage, stating "placing Inmate Lucas on the waiting list was all
5 that [he] was authorized to do." (Miranda Decl. ¶ 8.) Defendant
6 Miranda claims he "had no ability to provide Inmate Lucas with a
7 lower bunk while those with more severe medical issues required
8 them." (Id. ¶ 11.) Defendant Silva alleges he "placed Mr. Lucas
9 on the priority wait list," then "sent the appeal response to
10 Captain Guerra and Warden Curry for approval." (Silva Decl. ¶ 9.)
For the Northern District of California
11 Defendant Silva further claims, "I lacked the ability and authority
United States District Court
14
Case4:07-cv-01673-CW Document82 Filed03/30/11 Page15 of 21
11
bunk/lower tier" situation, despite the fact that Plaintiff sent
United States District Court
12
him a letter. (Compl. at 7.)
13
Plaintiff claims that Defendants Jarvis and Guerra, as the
14
appeal reviewers, and Defendant Curry, as a supervisor, were aware
15
of Plaintiff's "lower bunk/lower tier" situation through reading
16
his appeal and his letter, respectively. These Defendants do not
17
refute Plaintiff's allegation that, although he alerted them of his
18
back and neck pain resulting from his upper bunk assignment, they
19
did not ever assign him to a lower bunk. Taking the facts in the
20
light most favorable to Plaintiff, he has shown these Defendants
21
acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind by failing to
22
intervene to resolve Plaintiff's "lower bunk/lower tier" situation,
23
despite the fact that Plaintiff alerted them of his pain or serious
24
medical needs. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060. Therefore, the
25
Court finds that the evidence produced by Plaintiff raises a
26
material factual dispute about whether these Defendants acted with
27
deliberate indifference toward his serious medical needs when they
28
failed to remedy his complaints of back and neck pain from the
15
Case4:07-cv-01673-CW Document82 Filed03/30/11 Page16 of 21
11
positions that their conduct was unconstitutional." (Mot. for
United States District Court
12
Summ. J. at 12.)
13
The defense of qualified immunity protects "government
14
officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability
15
for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly
16
established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
17
reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457
18
U.S. 800, 818 (1982). A court considering a claim of qualified
19
immunity must determine (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged the
20
deprivation of an actual constitutional right and (2) whether such
21
right was clearly established such that it would be clear to a
22
reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation
23
he confronted. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S. Ct.
24
808, 818 (2009) (citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001)). The
25
court may exercise its discretion in deciding which prong to
26
address first, in light of the particular circumstances of each
27
case. Id.
28
16
Case4:07-cv-01673-CW Document82 Filed03/30/11 Page17 of 21
11 he confronted." Id. If the law "did not put the officer on notice
United States District Court
17
Case4:07-cv-01673-CW Document82 Filed03/30/11 Page18 of 21
18
Case4:07-cv-01673-CW Document82 Filed03/30/11 Page19 of 21
19
Case4:07-cv-01673-CW Document82 Filed03/30/11 Page20 of 21
1 is GRANTED.
2 3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of
3 Defendants in accordance with this Order, terminate all pending
4 motions, and close the case. Each party shall bear his own costs.
5
4. This Order terminates Docket nos. 63 and 67.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8 Dated: 3/30/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
9
United States District Judge
10
For the Northern District of California
11
United States District Court
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
Case4:07-cv-01673-CW Document82 Filed03/30/11 Page21 of 21
10
Defendant.
For the Northern District of California
11 /
United States District Court
12
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
13 Court, Northern District of California.
14
That on March 30, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
15 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
16 located in the Clerk's office.
17
18 Isiah Lucas E-91878
R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility
19
P.O. Box 799001
20 1-2-104
21 480 Alta Road
San Diego, CA 92179-9001
22
23
Dated: March 30, 2011
24
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
25 By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk
26
27
28
21