Sekona v. Horowitz

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 38, Plaintiff's opposition, ECF No. 40, and Defendant's reply, ECF No. 41. Defendant argues that Plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference is barred by res judicata, and that there is no genuine dispute about whether Defendant was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. ECF No. 38 at 4-8. In addition, Defendant contends that she is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 12-14. The undersigned agrees that there is no genuine dispute about whether Defendant was deliberately indifferent and thus recommends that Defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action on November 20, 2017. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff's claims are premised on the medical treatment he received from Defendant after he was assaulted by his cellmate in 2014. ECF No. 1 at 2-5. In this action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment by denying him proper medical treatment and delaying subsequent medical treatment.

This Court previously screened Plaintiff's complaint and identified two claims.^[1]ECF No. 16. First, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was deliberately indifferent when she discharged him from the hospital and placed him in a holding cell where he laid on a concrete floor with a concussed head and without pain killers or medical help. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant kept him in his cell when he had a seizure without checking on him for two days. Id. Second, Plaintiff alleges Defendant denied him a cane or walker and declined to treat him for three years. Id.

Defendant subsequently moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint, arguing that Plaintiff's claims were barred by res judicata, which Plaintiff opposed. The Court agreed that Sekona v. Holowitz, 2:16-cv-00608-CKD, a case dealing with Plaintiff's concussion and other related medical events, was a final judgment on the merits, and thus barred Plaintiff's first claim in this case. ECF No. 31 at 6-7. However, it also found that Sekona v. Hernandez, No. 2:17-cv-0346-KJM-EFB, a case dealing with Plaintiff's claim regarding ambulatory equipment and subsequent medical care, was not adjudicated on the merits, and thus did not bar Plaintiff's second claim in this case. Id. The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion.

In the instant motion, Defendant moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff's sole remaining claim: Defendant's denial of Plaintiff's cane or walker and subsequent medical treatment.^[2] ECF No. 38.

II. THE PARTIES' EVIDENCE

A.Defendant's Evidence

Defendant's motion for summary judgment is supported by declarations of Defendant, ECF No. 38-5, and Derrek Lee, a Deputy Attorney General employed by the Office of the Attorney General for the State of California and Defendant's counsel, ECF No. 38-4. Defendant also submitted a Statement of Undisputed Facts, ECF No. 38-3, contending the following facts are undisputed:

1. Inmate Etuate Sekona (AM 9766) filed his Complaint on November 20, 2017. Pl.'s Compl., ECF No. 1 at 4

2. At all times relevant to the allegations in the complaint Sekona was housed at Mule Creek State Prison. Pl.'s Compl., ECF No. 1 at 8.

3. Defendant Dr. Horowitz was a medical doctor at Mule Creek State Prison at all times relevant to the allegations in Plaintiff's. Horowitz Decl. ¶ 2.

4. Sekona previously filed a lawsuit against Defendant Horowitz [regarding the medical treatment and accommodations allotted by Defendant Horowitz from June 2, 2014]. Sekona v. Horowitz, E.D. Cal. Case Number 2:16-CV-0608-CKE. Part of the lawsuit regarded the provision of a cane and mobility vest. The case was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Decl. of D. Lee, Ex. A at 2-4; Decl. of D. Lee, Ex. B, at 1-2.

5. On June 27, 2014, at approximately 1614 hours, Inmate Sekona was found to be assaulted by his cellmate. Evaluations were completed and found that inmate Sekona sustained four loose teeth that were knocked out, bilateral nasal fractures, and a scalp laceration. Horowitz Decl. ¶ 4.

6. Sekona is not formally educated in the medical field. Decl.of D. Lee, Ex. B, at 13.

7.Sekona received a CT scan on June 29, 2014. Horowitz Decl. ¶ 6.

8. On July 7, 2014, Sekona expressed to Defendant Horowitz that he wanted a cane. At this appointment, Sekona demonstrated an ability to get up and down from the table normally, and walked without any indication of dizziness, imbalance, or asymmetry. Based on Dr. Horowitz examination and training, Plaintiff did not exhibit any symptoms that made a cane a medical necessity. Horowitz Decl. ¶ 8; Decl. of D. Lee, Ex. C at 6.

9. On July 21, 2014, Defendant Horowitz evaluated Sekona and recommended a neurology consult. At this visit, Defendant Horowitz also recommended an MRI to help evaluate Sekona's complaints regarding head injury and anxiety. Horowitz Decl. ¶ 6; Horowitz Decl. ¶ 9; Decl. of D. Lee, Ex. C at 7.

10. At the July 21, 2014 visit, Sekona sat, stood, got up and down from the exam table, and was able to walk away without any indication of dizziness, imbalance, or asymmetry. Decl. of D. Lee, Ex. C at 7.

11. Sekona received an MRI on August 4, 2014. Horowitz Decl. ¶ 6.

12. By July 2015, inmate Sekona received an additional neurological consult, addressing Sekona's complaints of headaches and dizziness. Horowitz Decl. ¶ 11.

13. On July 22, 2015, Sekona demonstrated an ability to sit, stand, and get up and down from a chair. Sekona also did not demonstrate any indication of dizziness, imbalance, or discomfort. Horowitz Decl. ¶ 11; Decl. of D. Lee, Ex. C at 8.

14. Sekona possessed a Comprehensive Accommodation Chrono that afforded ground floor housing, bottom-bunk housing, and physical limitations to job assignments. Horowitz Decl. ¶ 13.

15. Based on Dr. Horowitz's examinations and review of relevant medical records, at no time during Dr. Horowitz's examinations did she observe any conditions or symptoms to suggest that a cane was a medical necessity. Horowitz Decl. ¶ 14.

ECF No. 38-3.

B.Plaintiff's Evidence

In response to Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Facts, Plaintiff filed a Statement of Disputed Facts asserting genuine issues of disputed fact. See ECF No. 40. In support of his opposition, Plaintiff offers his own declaration signed under penalty of perjury, see id. at 14-15, as well as the following exhibits:

Exhibit A-1 Order dismissing Plaintiff's case Sekona v. Holowitz, No. 2:16-cv-0608-CKD (P), id. at 17.

Exhibit A-2 Defendant's declaration, id. at 18-22.

Exhibit A-3 Drs. Smith and Heatley's outpatient health record for Plaintiff, id. at 23.

Exhibit A-4 Crime/incident report regarding Plaintiff's assault, id. at 24-25.

Exhibit A-5 Photos of Plaintiff's injuries, id. at 26.

Exhibit A-6 Plaintiff's primary care provider progress note, where Plaintiff requests a cane, id. at 27.

Exhibit A-7 Plaintiff's primary care provider progress note about Plaintiff's injuries arising out of the assault, id. at 28.

Exhibit A-8 California correctional healthcare services exam report, id. at 29.

Exhibit A-9 Plaintiff's primary care provider progress note about Plaintiff's injuries arising out of the assault, id. at 30.

Exhibit A-10 Plaintiff's health care services request form, 5/24/15, id. at 31.

Exhibit A-11 Interdisciplinary progress IDTT summary, id. at 32.

Exhibit A-12 Plaintiff's health care services request form, 5/11/14, id. at 33.