“The first amended complaint was unverified and is thus insufficient to counter a summary judgment motion supported by affidavits.”
How later courts described this case
- “The first amended complaint was unverified and is thus insufficient to counter a summary judgment motion supported by affidavits.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No.: 18-CV-1581 TWR (KSC)
12 Plaintiff,
ORDER (1) OVERRULING
13 v. PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS,
(2) ADOPTING REPORT AND
14 OFFICER NAVARRO, et al.,
RECOMMENDATION, AND
15 Defendants. (3) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
16
JUDGMENT
17
(ECF Nos. 114, 140, 147)
18
19 Presently before the Court is Defendants J. Mejia, O. Navarro, E. Estrada, and A.
20 Silva’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Mot.,” ECF No. 114), which Magistrate Judge
21 Karen S. Crawford recommends the Court grant. (See generally ECF No. 140 (“R&R”).)
22 Plaintiff Lance Williams filed timely Objections to the Report and Recommendation
23 (“Obj.,” ECF No. 147), to which Defendants filed a Response (“Reply,” ECF No. 148).
24 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition
25 without oral argument. Having carefully considered Judge Crawford’s R&R, the Parties’
26 arguments, the record, and the relevant law, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s
27 Objections, ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Crawford’s Report and Recommendation, and
28 GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
1 BACKGROUND
2 The Court incorporates by reference the factual and procedural background from
3 Magistrate Judge Crawford’s Report and Recommendation. (See generally R&R at 2–5).
4 LEGAL STANDARD
5 When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on a motion pending
6 before a district court judge, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those
7 portion of the report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify,
8 in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
9 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United
10 States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989).
11 ANALYSIS
12 Plaintiff raised numerous objections to Magistrate Judge Crawford’s Report and
13 Recommendation, which can be grouped as objections to the following of Magistrate Judge
14 Crawford’s findings: (1) Plaintiff did not suffer a serious medical condition; (2) Defendants
15 were not deliberately indifferent; and (3) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
16 (See generally Obj.) The Court reviews each category of Plaintiff’s Objections de novo in
17 turn.
18 I. Serious Medical Condition
19 “A serious medical need requires an ailment of a greater magnitude or with a cause
20 separate from confinement.” Doty v. Cty. of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 (9th Cir. 1994)
21 (internal quotation marks omitted). A serious medical need thus exists “if the failure to
22 treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and
23 wanton infliction of pain.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
24 Plaintiff contends that his migraine was a serious medical need because “a migraine
25 headache can elevate to cause a brain an[eu]rism or blood clot . . . blindness and nose
26 bleeds and fainting/passing out.” (Obj. at 2.) Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that the
27 “defendants weren’t in the cell suffering in pain and in injury with plaintiff so how do they
28 know how serious plaintiff[’]s medical need was.” (Id. at 1–2.)
1 The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Crawford that Plaintiff fails to provide
2 evidence demonstrating that his migraines or psychiatric condition would qualify as a
3 serious medical need. The only evidence Plaintiff provided in his opposition to
4 Defendants’ Motion was a progress note from his psychologist, S. Krittman, from an
5 appointment on March 20, 2018—one day after the latest alleged incident. (ECF No. 130
6 Ex. A.) This note, however, notes “migraine” as an ongoing problem but does not indicate
7 the severity or frequency of Plaintiff’s migraines or that Plaintiff is prescribed medication
8 for his migraines. (See id.)1 Additionally, the psychologist did not note any psychiatric
9 prescriptions, instead indicating Plaintiff’s present issue was “anger management.” (See
10 id.)
11 Accordingly, on de novo review, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Crawford’s
12 recommendation that Plaintiff did not meet his burden of demonstrating a serious medical
13 need. Although this would suffice for the Court to grant summary judgment in Defendants’
14 favor on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim, the Court will consider the remainder of
15 Magistrate Judge Crawford’s Report and Recommendation and the Parties’ arguments.
16 II. Deliberate Indifference
17 “Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison
18 medical treatment, an inmate must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical
19 needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429
20 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). First, the plaintiff must show a serious medical need. See id.; see
21 also supra Section I. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendant’s response to
22 the serious medical need was deliberately indifferent. See Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. The
23 second step “is satisfied by showing (a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s
24 pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Id. “Indifference
25 may appear when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical
26
27
1 Plaintiff himself was not sure whether the migraine medication was “as needed or if it was prescribed.”
28
1 treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which prison physicians provide medical care.”
2 Id. “[C]ourts considering a prisoner’s claim must ask both if the officials act[ed] with a
3 sufficiently culpable state of mind and if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively harmful
4 enough to establish a constitutional violation.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992)
5 (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the
6 Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the
7 official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official
8 must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk
9 of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
10 825, 837 (1994).
11 Plaintiff contends that Defendants knew of his serious medical condition and
12 deliberately ignored his yells of “man down,” which functions to let officers know
13 something is “wrong with a[n] inmate.” (Obj. at 6.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges he
14 “informed defendants his nose was bleeding profusely,” yet was ignored. (Id.) Plaintiff,
15 however, does not provide any evidence to support his allegations. Plaintiff’s deposition
16 testimony, submitted by Defendants as an exhibit to their Motion, does not contain any
17 evidence of these statements, and Plaintiff failed to submit his own independent evidence
18 to support his allegations. Indeed, Plaintiff argues that he did not have to tell the officers
19 what was wrong with him due to a “hippa rule,” (see id. at 7), and that he could not recall
20 whether he informed the officers of potential side effects should he be without his
21 medication. (ECF No. 114-2 at 24.)2
22
23
2 Plaintiff contends that his “deposition testimony is irrelevant because [his] complaint and what[’]s
24
presented in [his] opposition to summary judgment and these instant objections are contradictory to the
25 statements made in the deposition.” (See Obj. at 12.) Plaintiff is incorrect. Plaintiff’s Complaint is not
verified and thus is not evidence for purposes of a summary judgment motion. See Lew v. Kona Hosp.,
26 754 F.2d 1420, 1423 (9th Cir. 1985) (“The first amended complaint was unverified and is thus insufficient
to counter a summary judgment motion supported by affidavits.”). Additionally, statements in Plaintiff’s
27 opposition to Defendants’ Motion and the instant Objections are not evidence upon which the Court can
rely. See Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 309 (1996) (“On summary judgment, however, the plaintiff
28
1 Consequently, on de novo review, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Crawford
2 that Plaintiff fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to Defendants’ deliberate
3 indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical need.
4 III. Qualified Immunity
5 “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless
6 a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional
7 right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”
8 Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800,
9 818, (1982)) (internal quotation marks omitted). To be “clearly established,” the right’s
10 contours must be “sufficiently definite that any reasonable official in the defendant’s shoes
11 would have understood that he was violating it.” See id. A defendant is “entitled to
12 summary judgment if discovery fails to uncover evidence sufficient to create a genuine
13 issue” as to whether the defendant committed the acts alleged. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472
14 U.S. 511, 526 (1985).
15 Plaintiff asserts that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because he
16 “presented a[n] 8th amendment violation of deliberate indifference and cruel and unusual
17 punishment” and that “these constitutional rights were clearly established” at the time of
18 alleged misconduct. (See Obj. at 8.) Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified
19 immunity because “they did not violate any clearly established constitutional right.” (Mot.
20 at 10.) Defendants contend that it was not clearly established that a “migraine headache
21 was a serious medical need that triggered the protections of the Eighth Amendment” or that
22 any reasonable officer “would have understood that [Plaintiff’s] psychiatric medication
23 was for a serious medical need.” (Id. at 13.)
24 On de novo review, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Crawford’s Report and
25 Recommendation finding that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
1 CONCLUSION
2 In light of the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No.
3 || 147), ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate Judge Crawford’s Report and Recommendation
4 ||(ECF No. 140), and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
5 114).
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7 ||Dated: March 29, 2022 ——
8 [ odd (2 (re
9 Honorable Todd W. Robinson
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28