McCurdy v. Deal

Background

James McCurdy, a California inmate proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials. The court had previously found that his amended complaint stated Eighth Amendment claims and had earlier limited the exhausted claims. The claim remaining in this case concerned Defendant Dr. B. Deal and the alleged discontinuation of McCurdy’s tramadol prescription. A separate claim against Defendant Thomas was severed into another action.

Deal moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is granted when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Deal argued that he did not discontinue McCurdy’s tramadol, that the medical treatment was not constitutionally deficient, and that he was protected by qualified immunity.

Court’s analysis

The court analyzed McCurdy’s claims under the Eighth Amendment standard for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. That standard requires proof that the medical need was sufficiently serious and that the official knew of a substantial risk of serious harm but consciously disregarded it. A prisoner’s disagreement with medical providers about the proper treatment, without more, does not establish deliberate indifference.

Tramadol claim

McCurdy submitted two medication-reconciliation charts that he said showed Deal prescribed tramadol. Deal submitted authenticated records indicating that Drs. Rivero and Lee—not Deal—ordered the relevant tramadol prescriptions. The court ruled that McCurdy’s versions were not properly authenticated and therefore were inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court did not resolve Deal’s allegation that McCurdy had submitted falsified documents because that issue could not be resolved on summary judgment.

The court found no evidence that Deal was involved in prescribing or discontinuing tramadol. Deal’s two medical encounters with McCurdy at the institution concerned mental-health treatment, not abdominal-pain treatment. Because McCurdy did not show that Deal caused the alleged deprivation, the court granted summary judgment to Deal on this aspect of the claim.

Pain-management claim

Even assuming McCurdy’s version of the medication records, the court found that he had not shown deliberate indifference. The evidence showed that prison medical staff evaluated and treated him repeatedly for abdominal pain, prescribed or offered alternative medications, and considered his medical history, including the addictive potential of tramadol and a documented allergic reaction that caused nausea and vomiting. The court also found that tramadol was continued for a period after McCurdy arrived at the institution and was later tapered because the physicians who evaluated him did not consider it appropriate for his chronic abdominal pain.

The court determined that McCurdy was challenging a choice between continuing tramadol and using other medications such as ibuprofen, acetaminophen, amitriptyline, and Prilosec. He did not provide evidence that the chosen treatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances or that staff consciously disregarded an excessive risk to his health. The court also noted that McCurdy refused some offered treatment options, including laboratory testing, Elavil, and amitriptyline. It held that his preference for tramadol was a difference of medical opinion and insufficient to support a claim under the Eighth Amendment.

Mental-health claim

The court also granted summary judgment to Deal on McCurdy’s mental-health allegations. Deal determined that gabapentin was not psychiatrically indicated and ordered a gradual taper. Other psychiatrists agreed with that assessment, and later providers found McCurdy stable without psychotropic medication. During Deal’s later face-to-face evaluation, McCurdy was psychiatrically stable, showed no evidence of self-harm or violence, and wanted to be removed from the mental-health program. The court found no evidence that Deal or other mental-health staff knowingly disregarded a substantial risk to McCurdy’s mental health or forced him to take psychotropic medication.

Disposition

The court held that the evidence did not show a genuine dispute of material fact concerning Deal’s alleged deliberate indifference. It granted Deal’s motion for summary judgment, Docket No. 118, and dismissed with prejudice the Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against him. The order terminated Docket No. 118.