Morris v. State of California

Background

Tairay Taqwain Morris brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison medical personnel. He alleged that nurse Risenhoover and doctor Adam were deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Deliberate indifference requires proof that a medical need was serious and that the official knew of a substantial risk of serious harm but failed to take reasonable steps to address it.

The defendants moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Claim Against Risenhoover

Morris alleged that from October 15, 2015, through October 22, 2016, he complained to Risenhoover about pain or swelling in his right knee or leg and that she failed to treat him. The defendants submitted evidence that Morris received medical attention at least 13 times during that period for routine care and other complaints. The records did not show that he reported right-knee pain during those visits, apart from a December 22, 2015 complaint about a swollen and painful right foot.

During the December visit, Morris declined antifungal cream and requested a blood test. Risenhoover denied the blood-test request as unnecessary. The court found that Morris did not explain how denying that test disregarded a serious risk to his right leg. Although Morris stated in his opposition that he had made several requests about right-leg swelling, he provided no supporting details or specific evidence addressing the medical records and treatment described by the defendants.

The court held that Morris failed to show a genuine factual dispute about whether Risenhoover knew of a serious medical need involving his right knee. It granted summary judgment in Risenhoover’s favor.

Claim Against Adam

Morris alleged that from May 2017 through November 2018, Adam failed to treat his right-knee osteoarthritis and pain. The defendants presented evidence that Morris received repeated medical attention, including an X-ray that showed a small effusion and moderate patellofemoral and medial-compartment osteoarthritis. Adam examined Morris, advised him to reduce high-impact exercise, recommended appropriate knee exercises and other conservative care, and determined that a presurgical magnetic-resonance-imaging scan and surgery were not required because Morris remained active and could perform normal daily activities.

The medical records described good leg strength, no limp, full knee motion, and the ability to perform deep knee bends. Morris reported exercising frequently, including running and squats. Although swelling and redness were noted during one May 2017 visit, the court noted that the knee was no longer swollen at the June 2017 examination. Morris opposed Adam’s account with a general statement that Adam had failed to treat his condition, but he did not identify specific supporting facts or evidence.

The court explained that a prisoner’s disagreement with medical providers about treatment is not enough for a civil-rights claim. Morris needed evidence that Adam’s chosen treatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and was selected while consciously disregarding an excessive risk to his health. The court found that he had not supplied that evidence and granted summary judgment in Adam’s favor.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants against Morris and close the case.