(PC) Sifuentes v. Ola ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL G. SIFUENTES, No. 1:16-cv-00241-ADA-GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL AND 13 v. GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 DR. OLA, et al., (ECF Nos. 54, 80.) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Miguel G. Sifuentes (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 18, 2022, the findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that 21 Defendant Dr. Akinwumi Ola’s (“Defendant”) motion for summary judgment, filed on May 28, 22 2021, be granted. (ECF No. 80.) On August 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed objections. (ECF No. 81.) 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 24 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 25 including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 26 by the record and proper analysis. 27 /// 28 /// 1 In his objections, Plaintiff does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff 2 had a “serious medical need” and Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiff’s serious medical need.1 3 (ECF No. 81 at 6.) Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Defendant was not 4 “deliberately indifferent” towards Plaintiff’s serious medical need. (ECF No. 81 at 4.) The Court 5 agrees with the Magistrate Judge that there are no genuine disputes about any material facts, so the 6 Court finds that there is not enough evidence for Plaintiff to win at trial. See Anderson v. Liberty 7 Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986). The Court further agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s 8 findings that the Plaintiff had a serious medical condition; Defendant had notice of Plaintiff’s 9 serious medical condition; and Defendant did not act deliberately indifferent towards Plaintiff. 10 Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge applied the incorrect standards with respect to 11 motions for summary judgment and the specific claim at issue. (See ECF No. 81 at 5.) Plaintiff 12 argues that the Magistrate Judge “cited standards which cannot apply here,” referring to Franklin 13 v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). (ECF No. 81 at 11.) Throughout his objections, 14 Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge “did not question” multiple pieces of evidence and asserts 15 that “there is a disconnect and major contradiction” in the Magistrate Judge’s own findings. (ECF 16 No. 81 at 9.) The Court disagrees. 17 The Court holds that the Magistrate Judge applied the correct standard: “A difference of 18 opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give 19 rise to a § 1983 claim.” Franklin, 662 F.2d at 1344. “To show deliberate indifference, the plaintiff 20 must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the 21 circumstances and that the defendants chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk 22 to plaintiff’s health.” Porretti v. Dzurenda, 11 F.4th 1039, 1047 (9th Cir. 2021). The Court agrees 23 that “[e]ven viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has not proven 24 that Dr. Ola treated him with deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment.” (ECF 25 1 Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erroneously found Plaintiff’s serious medical need as “not material.” (ECF No. 81 at 2-3.) However, the Magistrate Judge found the facts surrounding Plaintiff’s serious medical need as 26 material. (See ECF No. 80 at 20.) The Magistrate Judge states, “[t]here is no dispute between the parties that Plaintiff had a serious medical need.” (Id.) Plaintiff further argues that the “[M]agistrate omits and ignores, again, the most 27 relevant piece of evidence . . . that defendant Ola’s own notes and ‘treatment plan’ clearly reveal that he was [] aware of . . . Plaintiff’s injuries . . . .” (ECF No. 81 at 8.) However, the findings and recommendations cite to Defendant’s 28 note and found Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s serious medical need. (ECF No. 80 at 22.) 1 No. 80 at 21); see Matsushita Elec. Idus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 2 Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge refused to consider Plaintiff’s evidence because 3 Plaintiff lacked medical expertise. (ECF No. 81 at 2.) Plaintiff further takes issue specifically with 4 the Magistrate Judge’s “Deliberate Indifference to Risk of Harm” section, arguing that the 5 Magistrate Judge engaged in credibility determinations of the evidence. (See ECF Nos. 80 at 21- 6 26, 81 at 4.) The Court disagrees. 7 According to the Federal Rules of Evidence 701, “if a witness is not testifying as an expert, 8 testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is rationally based on the witness’s 9 perception . . . .” Fed. R. Evid. 701(a). Even if a question of credibility does arise, this alone 10 cannot, or may not, preclude a summary judgment finding if the totality of the evidence leaves no 11 genuine question of material fact. See Outlaw v. Newkirk, 259 F.3d 833, 841 (7th Cir. 2001). The 12 Magistrate Judge still considered Plaintiff’s evidence even though Plaintiff lacked the specialized 13 knowledge to provide an expert opinion. (See ECF No. 80 at 23-24.) For example, the Magistrate 14 Judge cited to Plaintiff’s deposition where Plaintiff stated that he disagreed with Defendant’s choice 15 of treatment but did not have evidence that Defendant chose Plaintiff’s treatment plan in conscious 16 disregard of an excessive risk to Plaintiff’s health. (Id.); see Porretti, 11 F.4th at 1047. As noted 17 in the findings and recommendations, “Plaintiff’s opinion that [Defendant] should have given him 18 a different treatment is only a difference of opinion with his medical caregiver, which does not rise 19 to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation.” (Id.) Therefore, there is no genuine dispute of 20 material fact with respect to the legal conclusion that Defendant did not act deliberately indifference 21 towards Plaintiff. 22 Lastly, Plaintiff misrepresents that this Court has previously declined to adopt the 23 Magistrate Judge’s findings that there is no genuine dispute with respect to the material facts of this 24 case. (ECF No. 81 at 3.) In fact, this Court has not previously declined such findings by the 25 Magistrate Judge. (See ECF Nos. 25, 38, 74.) As the Court previously held, “[a]s this case proceeds 26 through discovery, it may be established that plaintiff being treated by receiving stitches and 27 Tylenol was medically acceptable, or that such minimal treatment merely amounted to medical 28 malpractice or a difference of medical opinion, neither of which provides an adequate basis for a § 1 1983 medical care claim.” (ECF No. 25 at 5.) The deadline for the completion of discovery, March 2 | 29, 2021, has passed, and Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 54). Based 3 | on the discovery materials, the Court finds that Defendant’s choice of treatment for Plaintiff does 4 | not provide an adequate basis for a § 1983 medical care claim. 5 Accordingly, 6 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on July 18, 2022, 7 (ECF No. 80), are ADOPTED IN FULL; 8 2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed on May 28, 2021, (ECF No. 54), 9 is GRANTED; 10 3. The clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close this case. 11 12 13 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: _ September 29, 2022 UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28