Adom v. CDCR

Background

Bilal Adom, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court had previously found potentially valid Eighth Amendment claims against Warden M. Atcherly, Chief Medical Officer S. Sawyer, R. Mojica, Dr. Montegrande, Dr. Scott Ladd, and Dr. Loterzstain, and an Americans with Disabilities Act claim against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Two motions for summary judgment were before the court: one filed by Dr. Ladd and one filed by the remaining defendants.

Eighth Amendment claims

Adom claimed that defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide incontinence supplies for about four to five months between September 2021 and January 2022. The court explained that a prisoner must show a serious medical need and that officials responded with deliberate indifference—meaning they knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm.

The court held that the undisputed evidence did not show deliberate indifference. Medical professionals examined Adom on multiple occasions, and they found no indication that his incontinence had a medical cause or that he medically needed the supplies. During the period when he did not receive supplies, he received medical attention, tests, medication, extra clothing, and priority access to showers. Dr. Loterzstain later resumed the supplies, prescribed medication, ordered a urine culture, and performed a prostate examination. The court concluded that the evidence showed, at most, a disagreement about medically appropriate treatment and a temporary suspension of supplies, which was insufficient for an Eighth Amendment claim.

Adom also relied on medical records that mentioned urinary incontinence, listed supplies as an Americans with Disabilities Act accommodation, and documented a later finding related to urinary retention. The court found that these records did not show defendants knew, during the earlier period, that a medical condition required the supplies and then consciously ignored that need.

Adom separately claimed that Dr. Loterzstain violated the Eighth Amendment by performing a prostate examination. The court assumed for purposes of the motion that Adom had not consented, but held that this fact alone did not establish deliberate indifference. The evidence showed that the brief examination was medically indicated to investigate his incontinence, and there was no evidence that it was medically improper.

Adom also claimed that Dr. Montegrande conducted painful ophthalmology examinations roughly and caused abrasions. The court assumed his account was accurate for purposes of the motion but found no evidence that the tests involved more than minimal force. It concluded that the tests were standard and medically necessary under the circumstances and that no triable factual issue showed an Eighth Amendment violation.

Americans with Disabilities Act claim

Adom claimed that CDCR violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide incontinence supplies between September 2021 and January 2022. He did not oppose CDCR’s summary-judgment argument on this claim.

As to any request for injunctive relief, the court held that the claim was moot because Adom had been receiving incontinence supplies since January 2022 and there was no evidence that the lack of accommodation was continuing. As to monetary damages, the court explained that Title II requires evidence of discriminatory intent, which in this context required deliberate indifference by the public entity. The court found no evidence that CDCR denied the supplies because of Adom’s disability. Instead, the evidence showed that medical professionals determined he did not have a medical need for them and that defendants provided other medical care and accommodations. The court therefore found no triable factual question supporting ADA damages.

Disposition

The court granted Dr. Ladd’s motion for summary judgment and granted the remaining defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The clerk was ordered to enter judgment and close the file.