(PC) Williams v. Bell ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS, No. 1:16-cv-01584-NONE-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (Doc. Nos. 82, 121) 14 C. BELL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff John Wesley Williams, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this civil 18 rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. 19 According to the allegations of his complaint, plaintiff is an inmate receiving mental health 20 treatment at California State Prison-Corcoran (Corcoran). (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that 21 defendants chief executive officer (Bell) and three psychologists (Dr. Douglas, Dr. Fischer, and 22 Dr. Harris) at Corcoran, have been deliberately indifferent in treating his mental health issues. 23 (Id.) On April 12, 2019, defendants sought summary judgment in their favor as to plaintiff’s 24 claims against them. (Doc. No. 82.) After affording plaintiff numerous extensions of time to file 25 an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, with plaintiff ultimately failing to do 26 so, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendation recommending that defendants’ 27 motion for summary judgment be granted. (Doc. No. 121.) Plaintiff filed objections on April 20, 28 2020, and defendants responded thereto on April 28, 2020. (Doc. Nos. 122-23.) Pursuant to 28 1 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. 2 In light of plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to the pending motion, the evidence 3 presented by defendants is largely undisputed.1 In this regard, there is no dispute that plaintiff 4 needs mental health treatment given his serious medical needs; at issue rather is whether he 5 should have been provided a higher level of medical treatment designed for more seriously ill 6 patients. (Doc. Nos. 82-3; 121 at 10.) The magistrate judge considered the evidence presented on 7 summary judgment and the applicable law, concluding that the level of mental health care 8 provided to plaintiff by defendants was reasonable, that plaintiff had not presented evidence 9 meeting the threshold of establishing deliberate indifference, and that under the undisputed 10 evidence some of the named defendants were not involved in decision-making related to 11 plaintiff’s treatment. (Doc. No. 121 at 10-16.) Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 12 court finds the pending findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 13 proper analysis. 14 The court also finds plaintiff’s objections to the pending findings and recommendations to 15 be without merit for the reasons stated in defendants’ response. (Doc. Nos. 122-123.) Plaintiff 16 objects on the ground that he was unable to oppose defendants’ motion for summary judgment 17 due to his asserted lack of access to his legal materials. However, as explained by defendants’ 18 counsel, the record in this case simply fails to support this contention. (See Doc. No. 123 at 2-3.) 19 Plaintiff has had sufficient access to his legal materials and more than ample time to file an 20 opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment and simply failed to do so despite being 21 granted numerous extensions of time for that purpose. 22 ///// 23 24 1 Although plaintiff did not file an opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment, he did file a verified complaint, along with exhibits attached thereto. The magistrate judge properly 25 construed the complaint as an affidavit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, insofar as it was based on plaintiff’s personal knowledge and sets forth specific facts admissible into evidence. 26 (See Doc. No. 121 at 10) (citing Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 460 & nn.10-11 (9th Cir. 27 1995). However, even so construed, the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint failed to raise disputed issues of material fact with respect to his claims that are the subject of the pending 28 motion. WAS 4.64 MAE SN RUC tee PND eve PAY VM VIG 1 Accordingly: 2 1. The April 8, 2020 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 121) are adopted in full; 3 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 82) is granted; 4 3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of defendants; and 5 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose 6 of closure and then to close the case. 7 | ITIS SO ORDERED. a 8 Li. wh F Dated: _ July 18, 2020 Aa oF 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28