The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 RONNELL DAVIS, Case No.: 18-CV-2838-LAB(WVG)
12 Plaintiff,
REPORT AND
13 v. RECOMMENDATION ON
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
14 SAIDRO et al.,
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
15 Defendants.
[Doc. No. 12.]
16
17
18
19 Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this civil rights action
20 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary
21 judgment on the Complaint’s sole claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment. As
22 explained below, this Court RECOMMENDS the motion be GRANTED, that judgment be
23 entered in Defendants’ favor, and that the case be closed.
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
1 I. STATEMENTS OF FACTS
2 A. Defendants’ Statement of Facts1
3 On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff was diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in
4 his lower right leg. DVT is the formation of a blood clot in a deep vein. DVT may cause
5 symptoms such as pain and swelling in the affected area, and it also carries the risk of
6 pulmonary embolism (PE), whereby the clot detaches and becomes lodged in an artery that
7 supplies blood to the lungs. PE may be fatal. Five days after the DVT diagnosis, Plaintiff
8 was diagnosed with and treated for PE. Since that time, Plaintiff has been on warfarin
9 therapy to reduce the risk of recurring DVT or PE.
10 The goal of warfarin therapy is to decrease the tendency of the patient’s blood to
11 clot, thereby helping to prevent the formation of clots that could lead to DVT or PE.
12 However, care must be taken that the patient’s blood does not become too slow to clot.
13 Otherwise, the patient would be at risk for bleeding. Therefore, the blood’s ability to clot
14 is checked regularly and the dosage of warfarin adjusted accordingly. Prothrombin time
15 (PT) is a measure of the time it takes a clot to form. PT is usually expressed as a ratio to a
16 control sample, the International Normalization Ratio (INR). The average person not on
17 warfarin would have an INR of 1.0. The longer it takes the blood to clot, the higher the
18 INR. The target (therapeutic) range for a patient on warfarin therapy is generally between
19 2.0 and 3.0. If the level is lower (subtherapeutic), the patient is at an increased risk of
20 clotting and an embolism; if the level is higher (supratherapeutic), the patient is at an
21 increased risk of bleeding.
22
23
24
25 1 As of this writing, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the MSJ despite two extensions
of the deadline to do so. (See Doc. Nos. 16, 20.) When the most recent deadline expired on
26
January 19, 2021 (Doc. No. 20), Plaintiff filed neither an opposition nor a request for
27 extension of time as he had filed twice previously. (See Doc. Nos. 15, 19.) Because Plaintiff
did not file an opposition to the MSJ, Defendants’ version of facts stands as the only set of
28
1 Under guidelines issued by the California Correctional Health Care Services,
2 treating physicians are to consider placing a hold on warfarin therapy for any patient whose
3 INR exceeds 4.0. As long as the patient shows no signs of bleeding, physicians may
4 increase the frequency of INR testing and resume warfarin therapy once the INR returns to
5 the therapeutic range. However, if a patient shows signs of serious bleeding, health care
6 providers are advised to withhold warfarin and transfer the patient to a higher level of care.
7 In May 2015, Defendant Dr. Saidro became Plaintiff’s primary care physician at the
8 Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“Donovan” or RJD”). She had primary
9 responsibility for Plaintiff’s health care, including managing his warfarin therapy in
10 conjunction with the anticoagulation clinic at RJD.
11 Dr. Dulatre is a staff pharmacist at Donovan. Since 2015, he has been the manager
12 of the RJD anticoagulation clinic. He manages the anticoagulation medications of inmates
13 by regular appointments, medical record review, and collaboration with other medical
14 providers at Donovan to optimize patients’ drug therapy. Dr. Dulatre is responsible for
15 determining the appropriate dosages of anticoagulants, including warfarin, based on his
16 regular monitoring of his patients’ INR levels.
17 On March 1, 2016, a blood test showed that Plaintiff had an INR of 4.1. Dr. Dulatre
18 received an automated alert that Plaintiff’s INR was excessively high. He consequently
19 ordered a one-day hold of Plaintiff’s warfarin in an effort to return his INR to the
20 therapeutic range. He scheduled Plaintiff for a follow-up appointment on March 8, 2016
21 and a blood draw on March 9, 2016 to recheck Plaintiff’s INR. However, Plaintiff refused
22 to go to the March 8 appointment and failed to go to the March 9 lab appointment. Dr.
23 Dulatre rescheduled the blood draw for March 11. Plaintiff also failed to show for that
24 appointment.
25 Dr. Dulatre became concerned that it was dangerous to continue Plaintiff on
26 warfarin, since Plaintiff’s refusals of blood draws made it impossible to determine whether
27 the high March 1 INR level had returned to the therapeutic range. After Plaintiff failed to
28 show for his rescheduled blood draw on March 11, Dr. Dulatre called Dr. Saidro and
1 expressed his concerns. Dr. Saidro had Plaintiff summoned to the clinic, where a nurse
2 explained to Plaintiff the reasons he needed to have his blood drawn. Plaintiff again refused
3 a blood draw and refused to sign a Refusal of Medical Treatment form. After the nurse
4 reported to Dr. Saidro that Plaintiff again refused a blood draw, Dr. Saidro ordered a stop
5 to Plaintiff’s warfarin. Plaintiff’s warfarin was stopped that day.2 Dr. Saidro planned to
6 restart Plaintiff’s warfarin once his INR could be verified as no longer excessively high.
7 Plaintiff then prepared a Form 7362 Request for Medical Treatment that he dated
8 March 11, 2016, but which was not received until March 12 and not reviewed until March
9 13. In it, Plaintiff claimed he was experiencing bloody stool and bruising on his thighs.
10 Both are symptoms of bleeding and are signs that Plaintiff’s blood was taking too long to
11 clot. Plaintiff was seen in the clinic on March 13 because these symptoms required urgent
12 care. A nurse evaluated Plaintiff and noted rapid heartbeat and rapid breathing. She
13 consulted Dr. Bates, the on-call physician in the clinic at the time. Dr. Bates ordered
14 Plaintiff to be taken to the hospital to rule out pulmonary embolism.
15 Medical records show that Plaintiff was first taken to Sharp Chula Vista hospital. X-
16 rays and a CT scan of the chest were both unremarkable and found both of Plaintiff’s lungs
17 were clear. Plaintiff was then transferred to Tri-City Hospital for further care. The
18 admitting physician noted that Plaintiff reported maroon stool the day before, but that was
19 not verified. Plaintiff also reported lower chest/upper abdomen pain. The physician further
20 noted that “[i]t is unclear if there is really much to do,” that he “will hold off any
21 anticoagulants for now” as a result of Plaintiff’s report of maroon stool and that Plaintiff
22 “has obviously ruled out for a PE and his presentation is not consistent with a pulmonary
23 embolism either.”
24 Further tests, including an ultrasound on March 14 and a stress test on March 15
25 were also unremarkable. Plaintiff was discharged on March 15, 2016. The discharge
26
27
2 Davis claims he did not receive warfarin beginning March 9, 2016. Medical records show
28
1 summary notes that Plaintiff’s complaint of shortness of breath had resolved and there was
2 no evidence of bleeding during his hospitalization. His complaint of chest and abdominal
3 pain was deemed “likely musculoskeletal” and improved.
4 Plaintiff returned to Donovan early in the morning of March 16, 2016. The intake
5 nurse noted that all diagnostics at the hospital had negative findings. Plaintiff refused any
6 further assessment or taking of vitals upon his return to Donovan, stating he was tired and
7 wanted to return to his cell. He signed a refusal of treatment form. The physician on duty
8 in the clinic scheduled a follow-up appointment with Dr. Saidro.
9 On March 21, 2016, Dr. Saidro saw Plaintiff for a post-hospitalization follow-up.
10 Dr. Saidro noted that Plaintiff went to the hospital with shortness of breath and out of
11 concern that he was having a pulmonary embolism, but all tests were negative or
12 unremarkable. Dr. Saidro verified that Plaintiff had provided a blood draw and that his INR
13 was no longer excessively high. Dr. Saidro therefore ordered resumption of Plaintiff’s
14 warfarin treatment on that date. Plaintiff claims that Dr. Saidro told him she stopped his
15 warfarin because he would not go for a blood draw, and that Plaintiff had “to learn to do
16 as I say.” However, Dr. Saidro denies using such language.
17 Dr. Dulatre restarted Plaintiff’s warfarin on March 21. Dr. Dulatre saw Plaintiff on
18 March 24 to discuss restarting his warfarin. Plaintiff told Dr. Dulatre he was unhappy that
19 his warfarin was stopped. Plaintiff claims that Dr. Dulatre apologized for stopping the
20 warfarin, said that doing so was against plan, and that Dr. Saidro told him to stop it in order
21 to teach Plaintiff to do as she says. However, Dr. Dulatre denies these statements.
22 C. Procedural Background
23 Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint on December 17, 2018, alleging a single claim
24 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming two prison doctors were deliberately indifferent to his
25 serious medical needs. Defendants filed an Answer on April 15, 2019, and discovery
26 commenced on April 16, 2019 when the Scheduling Order issued. The Court also held two
27 settlement conferences, but the case did not settle. Defendants jointly filed the pending
28 summary judgment motion on April 30, 2020. On September 23, 2020 and November 23,
1 2020, Plaintiff was granted two extensions to file an opposition. However, Plaintiff has not
2 filed an opposition as of the time of this filing, and the January 19, 2021 deadline for doing
3 so has passed. He also has not filed a third request for extension of the opposition deadline.
4 II. LEGAL STANDARD
5 A motion for summary judgment shall be granted where “there is no genuine issue
6 as to any material fact and . . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
7 law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 698 (9th Cir.
8 2005). The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the Court of the basis for its
9 motion and identifying those portions of the file which it believes demonstrate the absence
10 of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The
11 opposing party may not rely solely on conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data.
12 Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court must examine the evidence
13 in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. U.S. v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654
14 (1962).
15 When the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense at trial,
16 “the moving party can meet its burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate
17 an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case; or (2) by demonstrating that the
18 nonmoving party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to
19 that party’s case on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” FTC v. Omics
20 Grp., 374 F. Supp. 3d 994, 1008 (D. Nev. 2019) (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323-
21 24).
22 III. DISCUSSION
23 A. Because There is No Genuine Dispute of Material Fact Whether Defendants
24 Violated Plaintiff’s Constitutional Right to Medical Care, Defendants are
25 Entitled to Summary Judgment
26 Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s sole claim brought under the
27 theory that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights through alleged
28 deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Defendants have proffered their
1 own sworn declarations explaining the reasoning for their actions in treating Plaintiff. In
2 opposition, Plaintiff has not submitted disputed material facts or medical expert evidence.
3 Accordingly, based on the uncontroverted evidence in Defendants’ favor, the Court should
4 grant the MSJ.
5 1. Applicable Law: Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs
6 The government has an “obligation to provide medical care for those whom it is
7 punishing by incarceration,” and failure to meet that obligation can constitute an Eighth
8 Amendment violation cognizable under section 1983. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103-
9 05 (1976). In order to prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical care,
10 a plaintiff must show “deliberate indifference” to his “serious medical needs.” Id. at 104.
11 This includes “both an objective standard—that the deprivation was serious enough to
12 constitute cruel and unusual punishment—and a subjective standard—deliberate
13 indifference.” Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled in part on
14 other grounds by Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014).
15 To meet the objective element of the standard, a plaintiff must demonstrate the
16 existence of a serious medical need. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104. Such a need exists if failure
17 to treat the injury or condition “could result in further significant injury” or cause “the
18 unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.
19 2006) (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled in part
20 on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc))
21 (internal quotations omitted). Indications that a plaintiff has a serious medical need include
22 “[t]he existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and
23 worthy of comment or treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly
24 affects an individual’s daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain.”
25 McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059-60.
26 A government official is deliberately indifferent under the subjective element of the
27 test only if the official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and
28 safety.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Gibson v. Cnty.
1 of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir. 2002)) (internal quotations omitted). “[T]he
2 official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a
3 substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837.
4 Deliberate indifference “may appear when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally
5 interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which prison physicians
6 provide medical care.” Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988).
7 “Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060; see
8 also Edmo v. Corizon, Inc., 949 F.3d 489, 494 (9th Cir. 2020). It “requires more than
9 ordinary lack of due care.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994) (quoting Whitley
10 v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986)) (internal quotation mark omitted). Inadvertent failure
11 to provide adequate care, negligence, and malpractice do not amount to deliberate
12 indifference and do not violate the Eighth Amendment. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06.
13 “Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation just because the plaintiff
14 is a prisoner.” Id. at 106. Even gross negligence does not establish an Eighth Amendment
15 violation. Edmo, 949 F.3d at 495. A plaintiff cannot prevail on a Section 1983 claim where
16 the dispute is over the quality of medical treatment. Sanchez v. Veld, 891 F.2d 240, 242
17 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Edmo, 949 F.3d at 495. Where a plaintiff’s claims arise from a
18 course of treatment he actually received, the plaintiff must prove that the course of
19 treatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and that the physician
20 consciously chose that course in disregard of an excessive risk to the plaintiff’s health.
21 Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058. “A difference of opinion between a physician and the
22 prisoner . . . concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to deliberate
23 indifference.” Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Edmo, 949
24 F.3d at 495.
25 In order to prevail on a claim involving choices between alternative courses of
26 treatment, a plaintiff must show that the course of treatment the doctor chose was medically
27 unacceptable under the circumstances and that he chose this course in conscious disregard
28
1 of an excessive risk to the plaintiff’s health. Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058; Jackson v.
2 McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837).
3 2. Discussion
4 a. Defendant Saidro
5 The undisputed facts and medical record definitively establish the propriety of Dr.
6 Saidro’s order to have Plaintiff’s warfarin treatment discontinued. Plaintiff had received
7 warfarin treatment until his blood tests showed excessively high and dangerous INR levels.
8 For several days, Dr. Dularte attempted to have Plaintiff take blood tests in order to
9 measure his INR levels so doctors could gauge the dangers of continuing Plaintiff on
10 warfarin treatment. However, Plaintiff failed to appear at two scheduled blood tests and
11 then refused to take a blood test after the necessity for one was explained to him.
12 Nonetheless, the medical records show that Plaintiff continued to receive his warfarin on
13 two days during this time despite having refused to take blood tests. His warfarin was
14 discontinued by Dr. Saidro only after Plaintiff’s third refusal to take a test.
15 The facts and evidence establish that the blood tests were medically necessary and
16 that the cessation of warfarin treatment was solely a result of Plaintiff’s own actions. Had
17 Plaintiff simply submitted to blood draws as he had done in the past, he very well may have
18 been placed back on warfarin treatment if the test results showed it would be safe to do so.
19 But because Plaintiff refused to submit to a blood draw even after being told the
20 consequences of his refusal, Dr. Saidro’s hands were tied given that Plaintiff’s most recent
21 blood test had shown excessively high and dangerous INR levels. Indeed, Dr. Saidro
22 resumed Plaintiff’s warfarin treatment when Plaintiff returned from the hospital after a
23 blood test taken there showed INR levels would allow safe resumption of warfarin
24 treatment. Doctors often need current and accurate data, like blood tests, to inform them in
25 making reasonable medical treatment decisions. Indeed, Dr. Saidro may have been
26 deliberately indifferent had she decided to continue Plaintiff’s warfarin treatment in the
27 face of Plaintiff’s refusal to submit to blood tests and with knowledge that Plaintiff’s most
28 recent INR was excessively high.
1 In light of the undisputed facts and evidence—which show that the blame for the
2 cessation of the warfarin treatment should rest squarely at Plaintiff’s feet for his failure to
3 submit to critical blood tests—there is no evidence whatsoever that Dr. Saidro was in any
4 way indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Dr. Saidro’s actions were medically
5 necessary in light of the circumstances she faced given Plaintiff’s most recent blood test
6 and refusal to take additional tests.
7 b. Defendant Dr. Dularte
8 Even if Plaintiff’s allegations against Dr. Dularte are taken as true, this would clearly
9 be insufficient to satisfy the objective element of the deliberate indifference claim. As an
10 initial matter, Dr. Dularte was not the one who ordered that Plaintiff’s warfarin treatment
11 be stopped, and this doctor’s sole role was simply to raise concerns about Plaintiff’s
12 continued treatment in light of his refusal to have his blood drawn. In any event, suspending
13 Plaintiff’s warfarin under the circumstances presented here was clinically proper, and there
14 is no evidence that it exposed Plaintiff to any risk of harm. Indeed, although Plaintiff had
15 initially presented with concerning physical symptoms and was sent to two outside
16 hospitals, tests conducted there ultimately revealed no significant medical issues.
17 The facts establish that Dr. Dularte made three separate attempts to have Plaintiff
18 submit to critical blood tests required to measure his INR levels, which had previously
19 tested excessively high and in the danger zone for continued warfarin treatment. The doctor
20 scheduled Plaintiff for two separate blood tests for which he failed to appear. The doctor
21 then took the step of having a nurse explain to Plaintiff why the blood test was necessary.
22 However, because Plaintiff continued to refuse to submit to a blood test, Dr. Dularte raised
23 concerns about continued warfarin treatment to Dr. Saidro. In light of these undisputed
24 facts—which, again, show that the blame for the cessation of the warfarin treatment should
25 rest squarely at Plaintiff’s feet—there is no evidence whatsoever that Dr. Dularte was in
26 any way indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Dr. Dularte’s actions were
27 medically necessary in light of the circumstances he faced given Plaintiff’s most recent
28 blood test and refusal to take additional tests.
1 3. Conclusion
2 Based on the foregoing discussion, both Dr. Saidro and Dr. Dularte are entitled to
3 summary judgment.
4 B. Qualified Immunity
5 1. Applicable Law
6 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their
7 conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable
8 person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). In general,
9 qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly
10 violate the law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986). In ruling upon the issue of
11 qualified immunity, the initial inquiry is whether, taken in the light most favorable to the
12 party asserting the injury, the facts alleged show the defendant’s conduct violated a
13 constitutional right. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). If a violation can be
14 made out, the next step is to ask whether the right was clearly established. See id. This
15 inquiry “must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad
16 general proposition . . . .” Id. “[T]he right the official is alleged to have violated must have
17 been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The
18 contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand
19 that what he is doing violates that right.” Id. at 202 (citation omitted). Thus, the final step
20 in the analysis is to determine whether a reasonable officer in similar circumstances would
21 have thought his conduct violated the alleged right. See id. at 205.
22 When identifying the right allegedly violated, the Court must define the right more
23 narrowly than the constitutional provision guaranteeing the right, but more broadly than
24 the factual circumstances surrounding the alleged violation. See Kelley v. Borg, 60 F.3d
25 664, 667 (9th Cir. 1995). For a right to be clearly established, “[t]he contours of the right
26 must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand [that] what [the
27 official] is doing violates the right.” See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987).
28 Ordinarily, once the court concludes that a right was clearly established, an officer is not
1 entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonably competent public official is charged
2 with knowing the law governing his conduct. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-
3 19 (1982). However, even if the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established
4 right, the government official is entitled to qualified immunity if he could have “reasonably
5 but mistakenly believed that his . . . conduct did not violate the right.” Jackson v. City of
6 Bremerton, 268 F.3d 646, 651 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Saucier, 533 U.S. at 205.
7 The first factors in the qualified immunity analysis involve purely legal questions.
8 See Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 917 (9th Cir. 1996). The third inquiry involves a legal
9 determination based on a prior factual finding as to the reasonableness of the government
10 official’s conduct. See Neely v. Feinstein, 50 F.3d 1502, 1509 (9th Cir. 1995). The district
11 court has discretion to determine which of the Saucier factors to analyze first. See Pearson
12 v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009). In resolving these issues, the court must view the
13 evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and resolve all material factual disputes in
14 favor of plaintiff. See Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2003).
15 2. Discussion
16 The Court finds both defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiff has the
17 burden of alleging a violation that has been clearly established that government officials
18 should have been on notice. Luna v. Ridge, 436 F. Supp. 2d 1163, 1173 (S.D. Cal. 2006)
19 (“Broad generalities in the articulation of the constitutional right at issue . . . are insufficient
20 to identify a clearly established right . . .”) (Burns, J.). “Except in the rare case of an
21 ‘obvious’ instance of constitutional misconduct . . . [p]laintiffs must identify a case where
22 an officer acting under similar circumstances as [defendants] was held to have violated
23 [plaintiff’s constitutional rights].” Sharp v. Cty. of Orange, 871 F.3d 901, 911 (9th Cir.
24 2017) (emphasis in original) (quoting White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 552 (2017)).
25 As discussed above, Plaintiff has not established that a constitutional violation
26 occurred. Defendants’ cessation of Plaintiff’s warfarin treatment did not amount to an
27 obvious constitutional violation when they could not determine Plaintiff’s INR levels due
28 to his own refusal to take blood tests. Thus, Plaintiff must identify legal precedent where
1 || an official acting under similar circumstances as Defendants was held to have violated his
2 constitutional rights. See Sharp, 871 F.3d at 911. “In other words, [Plaintiff] must point to
3 || prior case law that articulates a constitutional rule specific enough to alert these [doctors]
4 this case that their particular conduct was unlawful.” Jd. Here, Plaintiff cannot do so, as
5 Court is not aware that any such case exists similar to the circumstances of this case.
6 IV. CONCLUSION
7 This Court RECOMMENDS that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be
8 GRANTED, that judgment be entered in Defendants’ favor, and that the case be closed.
9 This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge
10 || assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule
11 || of Civil Procedure 72(b).
12 IT IS ORDERED that no later than February 26, 2021, any party to this action
13 file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document
14 || shall be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.”
15 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
16 || waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst,
17 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
18 IT IS SO ORDERED.
19 || DATED: January 26, 2021 | | Se
20 Hon. William V. Gallo
21 United States Magistrate Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28