Saddozai v. Bolanes

Background

Shikeb Saddozai, identified as a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court previously found that his amended complaint stated a claim under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Dr. Robert Spencer and Nurse Practitioner Amanda Anguelouch concerning treatment at the San Mateo County Jail’s Maguire Correctional Facility.

Saddozai alleged that, after he entered the facility with a gunshot wound to his right arm, Spencer and Anguelouch delayed an electromyogram, failed to follow up on a referral to Stanford for possible surgery, and failed to act on his grievances. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Saddozai could not establish the required elements of deliberate indifference and that they were entitled to qualified immunity.

Saddozai received five extensions of time to oppose the motion but filed no opposition by the final deadline. He later requested another extension because of COVID-19-related lockdowns and limited access to the prison law library. The court denied that request because its prior order had stated that no further extensions would be granted.

Medical care and evidence

The records showed that medical staff provided dressing changes for Saddozai’s wound 42 times between February 12 and April 1, 2016. He also received pain medication, examinations, an X-ray, an orthopedic evaluation, and care from Dr. Fong, a plastic and reconstructive surgeon. Dr. Fong ordered an electromyogram, which was performed on May 24, 2016—about three weeks after it was ordered, rather than on December 2, 2016 as Saddozai alleged.

Dr. Fong later considered a tendon-transfer procedure but stated that it was elective, could be performed at any time, and did not have a particular treatment window. He believed it was reasonable to wait a year to see whether function returned. Stanford declined the referral because it would not see Saddozai while he was incarcerated. Dr. Fong stated that there was no emergency or urgent need for the procedure, that waiting would not cause further injury or pain, and that the symptoms did not pose an excessive risk to Saddozai’s health or safety.

The records also showed that the grievances identified by Saddozai either concerned different medical issues or did not mention Spencer or Anguelouch. Saddozai did not submit evidence disputing defendants’ evidence.

Court’s reasoning

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 under the law. For an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim, a prisoner must show both an objectively serious medical need and that the official knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm.

The court held that Saddozai had not produced evidence creating a genuine factual dispute about whether his condition required surgery to avoid further significant injury or unnecessary pain. The court relied on the continuing medical care documented in the records and Dr. Fong’s opinions about the elective procedure and the absence of an urgent risk.

The court separately rejected each alleged delay. The electromyogram was performed in May 2016, not December 2016. A second Stanford referral would have been futile after Stanford said it would not see Saddozai while he remained incarcerated. The court stated that any lack of follow-up might support negligence or malpractice at most, but not deliberate indifference. The identified grievances did not establish that Spencer or Anguelouch ignored complaints about the gunshot wound.

Because Saddozai filed no opposition and identified no evidence from which a jury could reasonably rule in his favor, the court concluded that defendants were entitled to summary judgment. Because the court found no constitutional violation, it did not address defendants’ qualified-immunity argument.

Disposition

The court denied Saddozai’s request for another extension of time. It granted defendants Spencer and Anguelouch’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed the Eighth Amendment claims against them with prejudice, and terminated the motion.