(PC) Sharpe v. Sherman ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADAM SHARPE, No. 1:19-cv-00711-DAD-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 14 C. CRYER, et al., DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 65, 71) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Adam Sharpe is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 19 civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. This case proceeds on against 21 defendants C. Cryer, S. Gates, and J. Lewis on plaintiff’s claims of deliberate indifference to his 22 serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment based on his allegations that he has a 23 serious medical need for specialized contact lenses due to his suffering from keratoconus, an eye 24 disease that deteriorates his vision, and that despite the defendant prison officials being aware of 25 that need, he still did not receive the contact lenses. 26 On September 1, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 27 recommendations recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 65) 28 be denied. (Doc. No. 71.) In particular, the pending findings and recommendations found that 1 genuine disputes of material fact exist as to whether, in reviewing plaintiff’s administrative 2 appeals regarding his not receiving lenses and ophthalmology and optometry appointments 3 despite his doctors’ prescriptions and referrals for that purpose, defendants could have taken any 4 steps to ensure that plaintiff’s medical treatment was not unnecessarily delayed. (Id. at 16–20.) 5 For example, the magistrate judge found that “there remains a genuine dispute of material fact as 6 to whether Defendant Gates could have taken steps to ensure that Plaintiff received prompt care, 7 for example, by directing staff working under her to follow up on the status of Plaintiff receiving 8 his contact lenses.” (Id. at 20.) In short, the magistrate judge concluded that the evidence 9 submitted on summary judgment showed that “defendants were informed by medical providers 10 that Plaintiff needed treatment and yet did not take any steps to intervene in his delayed care.” 11 (Id.) In addition, the findings and recommendations found the defendants are not entitled to 12 summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds in this case because it was clearly established 13 law that “delays in medical treatment may manifest deliberate indifference” and that prison 14 guards—not just medical staff—could be held liable for healthcare delays. (Doc. No. 71 at 25) 15 (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104–105 (1976)). 16 The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 17 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id. 18 at 25–26.) On September 22, 2021, defendants filed objections to the pending findings and 19 recommendations. (Doc. No. 75.) Plaintiff did not file objections to the findings and 20 recommendations, but on October 6, 2021, plaintiff filed a response to defendants’ objections. 21 (Doc. No. 78.) 22 As plaintiff notes in his response (Doc. No. 78 at 2), defendants’ objections merely 23 reiterate the arguments that they made in their motion for summary judgment—arguments that the 24 magistrate judge already properly addressed in the pending findings and recommendations. (See 25 Doc. No. 75.) In their objections, as in their motion for summary judgment, defendants 26 essentially argue that because their administrative review of plaintiff’s appeals showed that he 27 was “actively moving through the process” and referrals to ophthalmology and optometry 28 appeared to be pending, their decision not to intervene cannot amount to deliberate indifference to 1 his serious medical need for specialty contact lenses. (Doc. No. 75 at 3–10.) However, as the 2 magistrate judge emphasized in the findings and recommendations, defendants rely on the fact 3 that they “lack the authority to contract with outside medical providers or schedule inmate 4 appointments,” but they “do not disclaim any ability to do anything at all to facilitate Plaintiff’s 5 medical care,” such as “contact someone who does schedule appointments to ensure that they are 6 handling the scheduling,” nor have they shown that they lack the “ability to investigate, at the 7 administrative level, why Plaintiff was experiencing multiple delays.” (Doc. No. 71 at 18–19.) 8 Defendants’ objections do not meaningfully address the findings and recommendations in this 9 regard. 10 In addition, defendants argue that the pending findings and recommendations improperly 11 relied on decisions that post-date defendants’ alleged misconduct in this case in concluding that 12 they were not entitled to qualified immunity based on their alleged violations of a clearly 13 established right. (Doc. No. 10–14.) Although defendants’ objection in this regard is well taken, 14 the undersigned notes that those recent cases were not the only cases relied upon by the findings 15 and recommendations, and indeed as noted above, the findings and recommendations also relied 16 on the Supreme Court’s decision from many decades ago in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 17 (1976). (Doc. No. 71 at 25.) Thus, defendants’ objection does not render the pending findings 18 and recommendations as to defendants’ qualified immunity arguments improper or incorrect. 19 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 20 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 21 including defendant’s objections and plaintiff’s response thereto, the court finds the findings and 22 recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 23 Accordingly, 24 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 1, 2021 (Doc. No. 71) are 25 adopted in full; 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 2. Defendants’ motion for summary (Doc. No. 65) is denied; and 2 3. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 3 proceedings. 4 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a " 5 Li. wh F Dated: _ November 6, 2021 See 1" S98 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28