Henderson v. Lewis

Background

Darren Henderson, who was incarcerated at California State Prison, Sacramento, filed this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that officials at Salinas Valley State Prison were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment because they did not provide him with a daily diabetic snack.

Henderson has diabetes and takes insulin. While at Salinas Valley State Prison from May 27, 2016, through January 12, 2017, his blood sugar was checked twice daily, and he was prescribed glucose pills for symptoms of hypoglycemia, or low blood sugar. He requested a daily snack consisting of cheese and crackers or peanut butter and crackers plus fruit. Medical staff denied the request as not medically indicated.

Henderson filed two prison health-care appeals. The appeals were reviewed through the third level of the prison’s administrative process. The first appeal was decided on its merits at the highest level. The second was partly decided on the merits and partly treated as duplicative of the first appeal.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies

The defendants argued that Henderson had not exhausted his claims against Kumar, Lewis, and Gamboa because he did not specifically name them or accuse them of wrongdoing in his administrative appeals. The court rejected that argument. It held that both appeals gave those officials notice that Henderson claimed he was being denied snacks needed for a serious medical condition, and that requiring separate grievances against the officials who reviewed the appeals would have been duplicative. The defendants therefore did not meet their burden of showing a failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Deliberate-indifference claims

The court then considered the merits of Henderson’s Eighth Amendment claim. To prove deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, a prisoner must show both a serious medical need and that an official knowingly disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. Mere negligence or a disagreement about medical treatment is not enough.

As to Watson, the registered dietician, the court found that Watson reviewed Henderson’s medical records, met with him, considered his weight and type 2 diabetes, and concluded that glucose tablets were a better option than a snack. Watson also considered applicable prison policies, diabetes guidance, professional recommendations, and medical literature. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact showing deliberate indifference.

As to Gamboa, the court found that Gamboa reasonably responded by arranging evaluations by a primary-care doctor and a dietician and relied on the medical guidelines, medical findings, and Henderson’s records. The record did not show that Gamboa knew of Henderson’s allegation that his glucose-pill refills had been denied. The court concluded that Henderson’s disagreement with Gamboa’s medical conclusion did not establish deliberate indifference.

As to Kumar, the court found that Kumar reviewed the medical records, doctors’ recommendations, and prison guidelines. Kumar granted Henderson’s appeal insofar as it sought an assessment by his primary-care doctor but denied the request for snacks. The court concluded that the evidence did not show deliberate indifference.

As to Lewis, the court found no evidence that Lewis was personally involved in Henderson’s medical care or in deciding the appeals. Although Lewis was named on the third-level decisions, the responses were prepared and signed by S. Gates under a delegation of authority. The court therefore found no evidence of Lewis’s personal participation in a constitutional violation.

As to J. Rodriguez, the court found that Henderson’s allegations concerned a female nurse, while the only nurse named J. Rodriguez at the prison during the relevant period was male. The court granted summary judgment for J. Rodriguez because the undisputed record showed that he was not the nurse involved in the alleged interactions.

The court also stated that the version of the prison medical policy in effect during the relevant period did not require diabetic snacks for all insulin-dependent diabetics. It provided that special nourishment should be supplied when medically indicated, with specified categories including juvenile-onset type 1 diabetes or brittle diabetes with an indication. The court found no evidence that the defendants failed to follow the applicable guidelines.

Qualified immunity and disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the qualified-immunity defense because it found no constitutional violation. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from damages liability unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied Henderson’s motion for summary judgment. The court also granted the defendant’s motion to strike Henderson’s sur-reply, stated that the motions were terminated, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for defendants, and closed the file.