(PC) Jongpil Park v. Kitt ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JONGPIL PARK, Case No. 1:19-cv-01551-AWI-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT DEFENDANT ADVENTIST 13 v. HEALTH BAKERSFIELD’S MOTION FOR 14 VICTOR V. KITT, ET AL., SUMMARY JUDGMENT1 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 36) 16 TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 17 18 Plaintiff Jongpil Park (“Plaintiff” or “Park”), a current state prisoner, initiated this action 19 by filing a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 31, 2019. (Doc. No. 20 1, “Complaint”). Pending before the Court is Defendant Adventist Health Bakersfield’s 21 (“Adventist”) motion for summary judgment filed March 30, 2021. (Doc. No. 36). After being 22 granted an extension of time, Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to Defendant 23 Adventist’s motion on May 3, 2021. (Doc. No. 40). A set forth below, the undersigned 24 recommends the Court grant Defendant Adventist’s motion for summary judgment motion and 25 Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice as against Defendant Adventist. 26 27 28 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 (E.D. Cal. 2019). 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 At the time of the Complaint, Park was held at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility 3 (“SATF”) under the custody of the Californian Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 4 (Doc. No. 1 at 7). The Complaint alleges an Eight Amendment claim against Adventist stemming 5 from Park’s surgery and hospitalization at Adventist. (Id. ¶¶ 81-89). Specifically, Park claims 6 he contracted Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (“MRSA”) while hospitalized. (Id. 7 at ¶ 35). 8 Adventist moves for summary judgment, arguing the undisputed evidence shows Park’s 9 surgery followed proper protocol, and Park’s MRSA infection was not contracted at Adventist. 10 (See generally Doc. No. 36). Adventist submits a memorandum of law, a statement of undisputed 11 facts, a Rand warning, the declaration of an infectious disease expert, and the declaration of 12 Adventist’s counsel in support of its motion. (Doc. No. 36-1 to 36-5). 13 Park filed a statement of non-opposition stipulating that “there is no genuine issue for 14 trial,” that Adventist is entitled to summary judgment “as a matter of law,” and admitting that he 15 had contracted MRSA “before he was admitted to” Adventist. (Doc. No. 40 at 1). Park requests 16 17 the Court to grant Adventist summary judgment in this matter. (Id. at 2). 18 II. APPLICABLE LAW 19 The “purpose of summary judgment is to pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof 20 in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. Ltd. v. 21 Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citation omitted). Summary judgment is 22 appropriate when there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is 23 entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment should be 24 entered “after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make 25 a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and 26 on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 27 317, 322 (1986). 28 1 Under Local Rule 230(c), “[a] responding party who has no opposition to the granting 2 of the motion shall serve and file a statement to that effect.” It is “the practice of courts in the 3 Eastern District of California to grant summary judgment to the moving party if the non- 4 moving party files an affirmative statement of non-opposition.” Burnett v. Sedillo, 2018 WL 5 4790168, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 6 5794521 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2018) (collecting cases). 7 III. ANALYSIS 8 The undersigned recommends granting summary judgment in favor of Adventist because 9 there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and Adventist is entitled to judgment as a 10 matter of law. Park’s sole claim for deliberate indifference against Adventist stems from Park 11 alleging he contracted MRSA form his surgery and hospitalization at Adventist. (See generally 12 Doc. No. 1). Defendant’s statement of undisputed facts, to which Park stipulates, states Park’s 13 “MRSA infection was not hospital-acquired.” (Doc. No. 36-2 ¶ 34). Parks admits he “was 14 already colonized with the MRSA bacteria before he was admitted” to Adventist.” (Doc. No. 40 15 at 1). As a result, Parks concedes that Adventist is entitled to summary judgment “as a matter of 16 17 law.” (Id.). Because Park stipulates to the material facts, in keeping with the “practice of the 18 courts in the Eastern District” the undersigned recommends Adventist’s motion for summary 19 judgment (Doc. No. 36) be granted. 20 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: 21 1. Defendant Adventist Health Bakersfield’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 22 No. 36) be GRANTED. 23 2. Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice against Defendant Adventist 24 Health Bakersfield. 25 3. Judgment be entered in favor of Defendant Adventist Health Bakersfield. 26 NOTICE TO PARTIES 27 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 28 1 || Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 2 || twenty-one (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party 3 || may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 4 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be > |! filed within twenty-one (21) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that 6 failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 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)). 9 10 IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: _ June 28, 2021 law Nh. fareh Base L&E B HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28