# Bodewig v. Matteucci

> District Court, D. Oregon · March 30, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10393095

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** March 30, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10393095

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that claims alleging inadequate medical care “brought by pretrial detainees against individual defendants under the Fourteenth amendment” are evaluated under an objective deliberate indifference standard

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

BRANDYN LAWRENCE BODEWIG, Case No. 6:19-cv-01879-MK

Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER

v.

DOLLY MATTEUCCI; KRISTI
HENNEN; PATRICK M. ALLEN;
WILLIAM MORRIS,

Defendants.
________________________________

KASUBHAI, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of his federal
constitutional rights. Defendants now move for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56 on grounds that plaintiff received medically adequate care for his impairments and
no genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. For the reasons explained below,
defendants’ motion is granted.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff is currently in the custody of Oregon State Hospital (OSH) in Junction City,
Oregon, and he has been in state custody since January 2005 pursuant to a finding of guilty
except for insanity. Plaintiff alleges that defendants have misdiagnosed his ailments and denied
him adequate medical care during his time in custody. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103

(1976) (“An inmate must rely on prison authorities to treat his medical needs”).
Defendants move for summary judgment on grounds that plaintiff cannot establish
deliberate indifference to his medical needs. To prevail on their motion, defendants must show
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The court must
construe the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to plaintiff.
Torres v. City of Madera, 648 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2011).
As an initial matter, many of plaintiff’s complaints involve his medical treatment prior to
2017. Claims arising before 2017 are beyond the two-year statute of limitations and are time-

barred. Sain v. City of Bend, 309 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. 199, 215 (2007) (“If the allegations...show that relief is barred by the applicable statute of
limitations, the complaint is subject to dismissal”). Thus, plaintiff’s claims are limited to medical
treatment he has received since 2017.
Between 2017 and 2020, plaintiff complained of various ailments to OSH staff,
including: an infected, ingrown toenail; a perceived infectious disease; tightness, redness, and
pain in his lower extremities; dizziness and blurred vision; a neck rash; and an ear infection.
Hennan Decl. ¶ 7 & Att. 1 at 2245-46, 2626, 2662, 4965-66, 6129, 6140, 6373, 6502-12, 8351,
14156-57. In response, OSH staff examined plaintiff regularly, provided medical care for his
symptoms, and arranged consultations with outside medical providers to treat his infected toenail
and assess the possibility of an infectious disease. Id. ¶ 8 & Att. 1 at 2245-46, 2626-27, 4631,
4962-66, 6129, 6131, 6373, 6502-12, 8076, 8261, 8328-31, 9131-32, 12736. After reviewing
laboratory results, the outside specialist confirmed that plaintiff did not have an infectious
disease. Id. ¶ 8 & Att. 1 at 8840, 9004. Further, during this time period, OSH staff checked

plaintiff’s vital signs on a monthly basis and performed bloodwork and other laboratory testing
in response to his complaints. Hennan Decl. ¶ 9 & Att. 1 at 8840, 9114, 9224-61, 12743.
Plaintiff was also seen regularly by mental health providers, at least one of whom
suggested that plaintiff’s physical symptoms were related to his mental health. See Morris. Decl.
¶¶ 12, 18 (stating that plaintiff “most likely is experiencing somatic delusions regarding his
belief that he has had a chronic infection since approximately 2002” and noting “the lack of
objective data”); see also Walker Decl. ¶¶ 9, 12, 16 (indicating that plaintiff has a “longstanding
preoccupation with sources of disease and harm [which] is consistent with paranoid ideation and
the pain and physical distress he claims to experience appear to be psychosomatic in origin”).

According to Dr. Kristi Hennan, plaintiff’s medical records, vital signs, and laboratory testing
show that plaintiff “does not appear to be suffering from a chronic medical condition requiring
immediate attention.” Id. ¶ 13.
Despite the medical treatment he has received, plaintiff contends that OSH staff ignored
his complaints and symptoms and failed to adequately diagnose and treat his medical conditions.
To sustain a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the
Eighth Amendment, plaintiff must establish the existence of “a serious medical need” and show
that “defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d
1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). A serious medical need exists if “the failure to treat a prisoner’s
condition could result in further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of
pain.’” Id. (citation omitted). A “prison official acts with ‘deliberate indifference...only if the
[prison official] knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety.’” Toguchi
v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).1 Deliberate indifference may
be demonstrated by the denial of or intentional interference with medical treatment, or by the

manner in which medical treatment is provided. Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir.
2002).
The record makes clear that plaintiff received adequate medical treatment in response to
his complaints. See Hennan Decl. & Att. 1; Morris Decl. & Att. 1; Walker Decl. As described
above, plaintiff had numerous appointments with OSH medical providers, obtained prescription
medications, received consultations and treatment from outside medical providers, and was given
a battery of laboratory tests. Plaintiff’s OSH providers addressed his belief that he suffered from
a chronic illness and referred him to an outside physician, who found no evidence to support a
chronic infectious disease. E.g., Morris Decl. ¶¶ 9-11. Plaintiff’s OSH providers likewise found

no objective medical evidence to support the diagnosis of a chronical illness and opined that
plaintiff’s physical symptoms were related to his mental health. See Morris. Decl. ¶¶ 12, 18.
Plaintiff does not dispute that he received regular medical care from OSH providers. See
Pl.’s Resp. at 16-17. Rather, plaintiff disagrees with the conclusions of his medical providers

1 Plaintiff also purports to bring a claim for deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth
Amendment and cites the applicable objective standard. See Gordon v. Cty. of Orange, 888 F.3d
1118 (9th Cir. 2018). However, pretrial detainees may bring such claims under the Fourteenth
Amendment, and plaintiff is not a pretrial detainee. Id. at 1124-25 (holding that claims alleging
inadequate medical care “brought by pretrial detainees against individual defendants under the
Fourteenth amendment” are evaluated under an objective deliberate indifference standard).
Moreover, plaintiff cannot prevail on his claim even if the objective standard applies, because he
fails to show that “a reasonable official in the circumstances would have appreciated the high
degree risk involved” and failed to take measures to abate that risk. Id. at 1125.
argues that they misdiagnosed his ailments, which has led to a lack of adequate treatment for his
continuing symptoms. Id. at 24.
Plaintiff’s disagreement with his medical providers cannot sustain a claim for deliberate
indifference. Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2016); Sanchez v. Vild, 891
F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). It is well established that a “‘difference of medical opinion’ as to

the need to pursue one course of treatment over another [is] insufficient, as a matter of law, to
establish deliberate indifference.” Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996).
Rather, plaintiff must show that his medical treatment “was medically unacceptable under the
circumstances” and was chosen “in conscious disregard of an excessive risk” to his health.
Hamby, 821 F.3d at 1092 (citation omitted).
Based on the undisputed facts of record, plaintiff cannot make this showing. At most,
plaintiff alleges that his OSH medical providers were negligent in misdiagnosing his chronic
symptoms. However, “[m]ere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition, without
more, does not violate a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights.” Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057

(citation omitted).
Alternatively, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. “Qualified immunity
attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional
rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 551
(2017) (per curiam) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff’s medical providers
examined him regularly, addressed his complaints, and referred him to outside physicians.
Reasonable state officials in defendants’ position would not have known that their medical
treatment would constitute deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s medical needs under the Eighth
Amendment.
CONCLUSION
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED, and this action
is DISMISSED.
DATED this 30th day of March 2021.

s/ Mustafa T. Kasubhai
MUSTAFA T. KASUBHAI (He / Him)
United States Magistrate Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10393095. Public record. Not legal advice.