Dao v. Gibbs

Background

Cuong Huy Dao, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against C. Van Horn, A. Gibbs, E. Ajimine, and E. Hassman, medical staff at Pelican Bay State Prison. The court had previously found that Dao’s complaint stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.

Dao’s claims arose after an April 23, 2019 altercation in which he suffered a laceration above his right eye. The wound was treated with six sutures. Van Horn, a psychiatric technician, removed one suture on April 29 but left the other five in place because he said the wound had not sufficiently healed. Gibbs, also a psychiatric technician, removed the remaining five sutures on May 3. Dao alleged that both procedures were painful and improperly performed, and that Gibbs used a substance that harmed his eye. The defendants maintained that the procedures were performed safely by trained staff and that Gibbs used harmless artificial tears to clean the wound.

Dao later submitted requests reporting impaired or blurry vision in his right eye. Ajimine, the registered nurse assigned to his housing unit, scheduled appointments, but Dao refused to be examined by Ajimine three times and requested a doctor or another nurse. After the third refusal, Ajimine ordered an autorefraction test, which Hassman performed on May 22. Dao alleged that Hassman used an X-ray device or otherwise “weaponized” the machine against his eye. The defendants said Hassman used a standard autorefractor and pupil-dilating drops, neither of which causes blindness.

Medical examinations in June and July 2019 identified a dense cataract and then a total retinal detachment in Dao’s right eye. The ophthalmologists attributed the detachment to trauma. Surgery was recommended, but Dao refused an August 2019 surgical appointment unless he first received another opinion. The opinion states that medical records indicated he had not received corrective surgery as of November 7, 2024.

Sur-reply

After the defendants filed their reply, Dao submitted “objections,” which the court treated as an attempted sur-reply. The court found that the defendants had not submitted new evidence with their reply and that Dao had not obtained the required permission to file additional papers. It therefore struck the sur-reply and did not consider it when deciding the summary-judgment motion.

Summary-judgment standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party but does not weigh conflicting evidence or decide witness credibility. The nonmoving party must identify evidence from which a reasonable jury could find in that party’s favor.

Deliberate-indifference standard

The court explained that deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment. The prisoner must show both a serious medical need and a defendant’s deliberately indifferent response. A defendant must know of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregard that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to address it. Negligence, malpractice, gross negligence, or a mere disagreement over medical treatment is not enough to establish an Eighth Amendment violation under § 1983.

Claims against Van Horn and Gibbs

The court granted summary judgment on Dao’s claims concerning the suture-removal procedures. It held that the fact that someone other than a doctor performed the procedures did not establish deliberate indifference, particularly because the evidence showed that Van Horn and Gibbs had medical training that included suture removal. Dao offered only his own lay opinion that they were unqualified.

The court also held that Dao had not shown that the suture removal involved a serious medical need as defined by the governing standard, that either defendant knew of a substantial risk of vision loss, or that either defendant caused the loss of vision. Even accepting Dao’s allegations that the procedures were performed incorrectly, the court stated that such conduct might amount to malpractice or negligence, but would not by itself establish an Eighth Amendment violation. As to Gibbs, the court found no evidence that she applied a harmful chemical or that any such substance caused Dao’s vision loss. The medical evidence instead attributed the loss to retinal detachment caused by trauma.

Claim against Ajimine

The court granted summary judgment on the claim against Ajimine. It found that Ajimine promptly reviewed Dao’s medical requests, scheduled an appointment for the next business day, and attempted to evaluate him for referral to a doctor. Dao refused to be examined by Ajimine and demanded to see someone else. The court found no evidence that Ajimine knew Dao faced a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded it. It also found that no other registered nurse was available in Dao’s housing unit and that Ajimine’s supervisor instructed that Ajimine had to evaluate Dao before a referral could be considered.

The court further found no evidence that Ajimine’s autorefraction referral was an unreasonable course of treatment or that Ajimine caused Dao’s injury. It concluded that Dao had not identified evidence creating a triable issue on deliberate indifference.

Claim against Hassman

The court granted summary judgment on the claim against Hassman. It found that Hassman performed the scheduled autorefraction test on the same day as the referral and that the defendants submitted undisputed evidence explaining the test’s operation and purpose. Dao offered speculation, but no probative evidence, supporting his claim that Hassman used harmful rays or deliberately damaged his eye.

The court relied on the medical records from two ophthalmologists, whose examinations attributed Dao’s vision loss to a trauma-related retinal detachment and did not conclude that the eye had been damaged by harmful rays. Because Dao failed to identify evidence from which a reasonable jury could find deliberate indifference, the court entered summary judgment for Hassman.

Leave to amend

Dao raised new allegations against Dr. Ryan and Dr. Buda in his opposition papers. Although he did not expressly request leave to amend, the court considered whether amendment should be allowed. It denied leave to amend because the proposed claims would be futile.

As to Dr. Ryan, the court found no evidence that he knew of a substantial risk of serious harm during Hassman’s autorefraction test. The court also noted that Ryan later treated Dao after a referral and that any alleged deficiency in Ryan’s cataract diagnosis would amount, at most, to negligence or malpractice. As to Dr. Buda, the court found that Buda had approved and scheduled retinal-detachment surgery and had explained the risks of delay. The court concluded that Dao’s refusal to proceed without another opinion caused the delay described in the record and that Dao’s disagreement with Buda about obtaining another opinion did not establish deliberate indifference.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It dismissed with prejudice Dao’s Eighth Amendment claims against Van Horn, Gibbs, Ajimine, and Hassman. It denied leave to amend to add claims against Dr. Ryan and Dr. Buda. Because the court found no constitutional violation, it did not reach the defendants’ qualified-immunity argument. The order terminated Docket No. 15.