Sandoval

1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

5 ARMANDO SANDOVAL, Case No. 24-cv-04045-RMI

6 Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION

7 v. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

8 D. FERRER, Re: Dkt. No. 19

Defendant.

9

10

11 Now pending before the court is Defendant Ferrer’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the

12 merits and on qualified immunity grounds. (Dkt. 19.) Plaintiff filed an opposition (dkts. 22, 23)

13 and Defendant filed a reply (dkts. 27, 28). For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s Motion is

14 granted.

15 BACKGROUND

16 Plaintiff alleges that on November 24, 2023, he was vomiting blood, had trouble breathing,

17 had pressure in his chest, felt pains in his side, and was exhibiting other symptoms. (Compl. ¶ 7,

18 Dkt. 1.) When his health did not improve, he sought medical help on November 28, 2023, at the

19 Facility C Medical Clinic. (Compl. ¶ 8; Sandoval Dep. 17:4–6, 19:8–9, May 27, 2025, Dkt. 19-1.)

20 Plaintiff stated that his symptoms at the time included chest pain, boils on his body, headaches, a

21 cough, vomiting, swelling feet, and pain in his back and side. (Sandoval Dep. 19:22–25.) He did

22 not have an appointment but was allowed to enter the clinic after describing his symptoms to an

23 officer. (Compl. ¶ 8; Sandoval Dep. 21:3–13.) According to Plaintiff, he then reported his

24 symptoms to a nurse he described as an Asian female approximately 5’3” to 5’5” tall and

25 approximately 30 to 45 years-old with a heavy accent. (Compl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff later determined the

26 nurse was Defendant. (Compl. ¶ 9.) He alleges that in response to his symptoms, Defendant said,

27 “if you can talk, you can breathe,” “stop being a baby,” and “if you can walk it’s not really an

1 request form but did not offer him any treatment. (Compl. ¶ 9; Sandoval Dep. 22:16–25.)

2 Defendant disputes these facts and denies that this interaction ever occurred. (Ferrer Decl. ¶ 4,

3 Dkt. 19-3.) She states that she was not working at the Facility C Medical Clinic that day and was

4 instead assigned to a different location of the prison to provide immunization shots, and that she

5 did not evaluate any patients that day or interact with Plaintiff. (Ferrer Decl. ¶ 5, Dkt. 19-3.) She

6 also states that she has never spoken to a patient with words like those in Plaintiff’s allegations.

7 (Ferrer Decl. ¶ 4, Dkt. 19-3.) Defendant has included the sign-in-sheet for where she was working

8 that day. (Ferrer. Decl. Ex. A, Dkt. 19-3 at 5.)

9 Plaintiff submitted a health care request form three days later on December 1, 2023.

10 (Feinberg Decl. Ex. B, Dkt. 19-2 at 11.) The form states, “every time I breath I get a big sharp pain

11 on my left side, on the center of my back, I do not know if my lungs is or if I simply pull[ed]

12 something.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that his condition worsened drastically in the 24 hours after he

13 submitted this form, and he began to experience symptoms like nausea, brown urine, coughing up

14 bloody mucus, and large painful rashes on his arms and legs.

15 Plaintiff was seen by Defendant on December 4, 2023. (Ferrer Decl. Ex. C, Dkt. 19-3 at

16 10–17; Ferrer Decl. ¶ 6; Compl. ¶ 12.). Plaintiff states that he told Defendant that he had chest

17 pain and trouble breathing and then vomited. (Sandoval Dep. 25:16–26:24; Compl. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff

18 contends that Defendant became angry and told him that he needed to leave so she could clean up

19 his vomit, and that he needed to submit another health request form. (Id). He alleges that she

20 provided no treatment during this visit. (Id.).

21 Defendant disputes these facts. (Ferrer Decl. ¶ 6–9.) She states that his primary complaint

22 at the appointment was pain in his back while breathing and that he did not report or complain of

23 any other symptoms. (Ferrer Decl. ¶ 7; Ferrer Decl. Ex. C, Dkt. 19-3 at 10–13.) She examined

24 Plaintiff, including taking his temperature and vitals, and his oxygen saturation and temperature

25 were normal. (Ferrer Decl. ¶ 8; Ferrer Decl. Ex. C, Dkt. 19-3 at 11.) She did not observe him

26 cough or vomit during the evaluation and his lungs sounded normal. (Ferrer Decl. ¶ 8; Ferrer Decl.

27 Ex. C, Dkt. 19-3 at 14–15.) Her account of the visit is supported by her written evaluation and

1 musculoskeletal back pain. (Ferrer Decl. ¶ 9; Ferrer Decl. Ex. C, Dkt. 19-3 at 16–17.) She

2 documented a treatment plan that included providing education on muscle strain and administering

3 Tylenol for pain relief. (Ferrer Decl. ¶ 9; Ferrer Decl. Ex. C, Dkt. 19-3 at 17; Ferrer Decl. Ex. D,

4 Dkt. 19-3 at 19–25.) Defendant also scheduled a follow-up appointment in seven days, advised

5 Plaintiff to rest and avoid strenuous activities, and informed him about the procedure for

6 requesting urgent healthcare. (Ferrer Decl. ¶ 9). Plaintiff signed the discharge paperwork with her

7 findings. (Ferrer Decl. Ex. D, Dkt. 19-3 at 26.) Plaintiff had no other interactions with Defendant.

8 On December 6, 2023, Plaintiff submitted a health care request form indicating that his

9 urine was brown and he believed he had an infection. (Iranmanesh Decl. Ex. C, Dkt. 19-1 at 72.)

10 He also wrote on the request form that he had recently attended a “respiratory check-up.” (Id.)

11 Plaintiff alleges that he passed out after completing this medical form and was taken to the

12 medical triage center for evaluation. (Compl. ¶ 13.) According to the December 6, 2023, medical

13 report, Plaintiff told a different nurse that he had shortness of breath, chest pain, and had been

14 suffering from throbbing back pain since approximately November 30, 2023, and that it had

15 worsened since December 5, 2023. (Feinberg Decl. Ex. B, Dkt. 19-2 at 31–34.) The medical report

16 also reflects that he denied any nausea or vomiting. (Id. at 34.) He had a fever of 100.6 degrees

17 which he reported having for the previous 24 hours. (Id. at 37.) He was then transported to

18 Natividad Medical Center. (Id.)

19 At the outside hospital, it was determined that Plaintiff had Valley Fever, pneumonia, an

20 accumulation of fluid in his lungs, and liver damage. (Compl. ¶ 13; Feinberg Decl. Ex. B, Dkt. 19-

21 2 at 46–48.) The Natividad hospital medical report reflects that Plaintiff stated that his symptoms

22 began “a week ago.” (Feinberg Decl. Ex. B, Dkt. 19-2 at 38.) The report also reflects that he

23 denied any nausea or vomiting. (Id. at 39–40.) He was treated with intravenous antibiotics,

24 antifungal medications, and other medicines and was discharged after ten days on December 16,

25 2023. (Id. at 53–54.)

26 LEGAL STANDARD

27 Summary judgment on a claim or defense is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is

1 law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). To prevail, a party moving for summary judgment must show the

2 absence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving

3 party’s claim, or to a defense on which the nonmoving party will bear the burden of persuasion at

4 trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the movant has made this

5 showing, the burden then shifts to the party opposing summary judgment to identify “specific facts

6 showing there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. The party opposing summary judgment must then

7 present affirmative evidence from which a jury could return a verdict in that party’s favor.

8 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986).

9 On summary judgment, a court will draw all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the

10 nonmovant. Id. at 255. In deciding summary judgment motions, “[c]redibility determinations, the

11 weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury

12 functions, not those of a judge.” Id. However, conclusory or speculative testimony or allegations

13 do not raise genuine issues of fact and are insufficient to defeat summary judgment. See e.g.,

14 Thornhill Publ’g Co., Inc. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979).

15 Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s

16 proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976);

17 McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX

18 Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A determination of a

19 “deliberate indifference” claim involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the

20 prisoner’s medical need and the nature of the defendant’s response to that need. Id. at 1059.

21 A serious medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in

22 further significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id. The existence of

23 an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or

24 treatment, the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily

25 activities, or the existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples of indications that a

26 prisoner has a serious need for medical treatment. Id. at 1059–60.

27 A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she knows that a prisoner faces a

1 it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must not only “be aware of

2 facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but

3 “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but did

4 not actually know, the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the

5 risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002).

6 DISCUSSION

7 The court first notes that Plaintiff’s Valley Fever and ten-day hospital stay requiring

8 intravenous medication qualifies as a serious medical need, and Defendant has not contended

9 otherwise. The only issue is whether Defendant was deliberately indifferent in her treatment of

10 Plaintiff prior to the hospitalization.

11 Plaintiff’s first key allegation is that he saw Defendant without an appointment on

12 November 28, 2023, where she denied him any care despite his serious symptoms like nausea and

13 vomiting. However, Defendant was not working at the clinic that day and submitted evidence

14 demonstrating that she was at a different location in the prison and did not evaluate any patients or

15 interact with Plaintiff that day. Plaintiff’s only response to this evidence is that he identified

16 Defendant as the nurse.

17 Furthermore, Plaintiff’s description of his symptoms to other staff at the prison and the

18 hospital reflects that he was not in distress as early as November 28, 2023, and he was not

19 vomiting or experiencing nausea. Plaintiff’s health care request form on December 1, 2023, only

20 mentioned that he felt pain on his left side and back while breathing and that he was unsure if he

21 had pulled a muscle. There was no mention of nausea or vomiting. Plaintiff saw other nurses for

22 medical treatment on December 6, 2023, and stated that he had experienced pain and shortness of

23 breath for about a week, since November 30, 2023, the day before his December 1 health care

24 request. He again denied any nausea or vomiting. When Plaintiff was treated by staff at the outside

25 hospital, he also stated that his symptoms began about a week before and he denied nausea or

26 vomiting. This evidence contradicts Plaintiff’s allegations that he started experiencing symptoms

27 on November 24, 2023; that he complained of vomiting blood and other symptoms when he

1 not address why his written medical requests and his reports to other physicians failed to mention

2 the symptoms that he now contends he was experiencing at that time. While there could be an

3 explanation for these discrepancies, it was Plaintiff’s burden to present the court with his

4 arguments, and he has not done so.

5 Defendant has met her burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact

6 for this aspect of the claim because she submitted evidence that she was at a different location and

7 the undisputed medical records show that Plaintiff was not suffering from the symptoms he now

8 describes. Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating that there is a genuine issue for trial.

9 His response to this evidence, simply that he recognized Defendant, is insufficient, and he does

10 not address the conflict between his allegations and the medical reports. “When the nonmoving

11 party relies only on its own affidavits to oppose summary judgment, it cannot rely on conclusory

12 allegations unsupported by factual data to create an issue of material fact.” Hansen v. United

13 States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993).

14 Plaintiff’s second key allegation is that Defendant denied him medical care on December

15 4, 2023, despite Plaintiff reporting serious symptoms and vomiting in front of her. The parties do

16 not dispute that Defendant saw Plaintiff on December 4, 2023, in response to his request to

17 address the pain on his left side and back when breathing. The medical report from that visit

18 reflects that Defendant treated Plaintiff, checked all his vital signs, and created a plan to address

19 what she believed was musculoskeletal pain. Defendant included an opinion from another doctor

20 who reviewed Plaintiff’s medical file and concluded that there were no indications that he had an

21 infection at that time. (Feinberg Decl. ¶ 21, Dkt. 19-2.) During that appointment, Plaintiff did not

22 have a fever, he was not coughing, his lung examination was normal, and his oxygen levels were

23 normal. (Id.) It was reasonable and medically acceptable for Defendant to conclude that Plaintiff’s

24 symptoms were musculoskeletal in nature and possibly indicated a pulled muscle as Plaintiff

25 himself believed. (Id.)

26 Plaintiff maintains that he was denied care again on that day. In response to Defendant’s

27 full medical report for the December 4, 2023, visit, Plaintiff only states that Defendant authored

1 Plaintiff does not address the medical reports from other staff at the prison and at the outside

2 hospital, who would have no motive to lie in their reports. Those reports support Defendant’s

3 contention that she properly treated Plaintiff on December 4, 2023, and that he did not complain of

4 the symptoms he now claims.

5 Furthermore, Plaintiff’s December 6, 2023, medical request form indicates that he had

6 recently attended a respiratory check-up. This appears to reference the December 4, 2023, visit

7 with Defendant where he complained of pain while breathing. The form makes no reference to

8 being denied care and appears to confirm that he had a routine check-up with Defendant for

9 respiratory issues as noted in Defendant’s medical report.

10 Defendant has again met her burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material

11 fact as to her provision of care on December 4, 2023. Plaintiff has not met his burden in

12 demonstrating that there is a genuine issue for trial. His response to the evidence above is that

13 Defendant must have fabricated the medical report—this is insufficient and does not address the

14 consistency between the findings of her medical report and the other medical reports from the

15 prison and the outside hospital. Nor does he address his medical request form that appears to

16 confirm he had a normal routine checkup with Defendant.

17 Moreover, even assuming that Defendant denied Plaintiff care on November 28, 2023, and

18 December 4, 2023, the undisputed facts demonstrate the Defendant was not deliberately

19 indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs. At these visits, Plaintiff only reported pain issues, usually

20 related to breathing, and said he believed he may have pulled a muscle. His symptoms did not

21 point to an infection or Valley Fever, as noted in Defendant’s expert’s medical opinion. (Feinberg

22 Decl. ¶ 21, Dkt. 19-2.) Because Defendant was not aware of these symptoms, she could not be

23 deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. See Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1188 (9th Cir. 2002).

24 To the extent that Plaintiff’s treatment for Valley Fever may have been delayed for several

25 days before he was taken to the hospital, the “mere delay of [treatment], without more, is

26 insufficient to state a claim of deliberate medical indifference. . . . [a prisoner] would have no

27 claim for deliberate medical indifference unless the denial was harmful.” Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of

1 the summary judgment motion, but Plaintiff has not presented any allegations or evidence that any

2 delay in treatment was harmful. It is undisputed that when Plaintiff submitted a medical request

3 form on December 6, 2023, and was seen by medical staff, it was the first time he had a fever and

4 complained of shortness of breath. Based on these new symptoms, Plaintiff was promptly taken to

5 an outside hospital where he was treated. Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendant was

6 deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, and her summary judgment motion is granted.

7 Qualified Immunity

8 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability for

9 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

10 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457

11 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The rule of “qualified immunity protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or

12 those who knowingly violate the law.’” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001) (quoting Malley

13 v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). Defendants can have a reasonable, but mistaken, belief about

14 the facts or about what the law requires in any given situation. Id. at 205. A court considering a

15 claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an

16 actual constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established such that it would be

17 clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S.

18 223, 236 (2009) (overruling the sequence of the two-part test that required determining a

19 deprivation first and then deciding whether such right was clearly established, as required by

20 Saucier). The court may exercise its discretion in deciding which prong to address first, in light of

21 the particular circumstances of each case. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236.

22 A right is clearly established if it was “sufficiently clear [at the time of the conduct at

23 issue] that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that

24 right.” Taylor v. Barkes, 575 U.S. 822, 825 (2015). The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned

25 that courts should not define clearly established law at a high level of generality. See White v.

26 Pauly, 58 U.S. 73, 79 (2017) (per curiam); see, e.g., Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U.S. 100, 104–08

27 (2018) (per curiam) (officer entitled to qualified immunity for shooting a woman who was armed

] the weapon).

2 The Court has not found the violation of a constitutional right. Even if there was a

3 constitutional violation, it would not be clear to Defendant or any reasonable medical professional

4 || that Plaintiff had Valley Fever based on his symptoms and that only treating him for his

5 complaints of muscle pain would be unlawful. As such, Defendant is entitled to qualified

6 || immunity.

7 CONCLUSION

8 Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

9 || (dkt. 19) is GRANTED. A separate judgment shall issue and the Clerk is requested to close this

10 case.

1] IT IS SO ORDERED.

a 12 Dated: May 4, 2026

13

14

BERT M. ILLMAN

15 United States Magistrate Judge

16

17

Z 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28