Johnson v. Posson
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:19-cv-03883
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 15
In Johnson v. Posson, Judge Rogers granted the defendants’ motion, ruling that Johnson’s medical-care claims failed under the Eighth Amendment.
Calvin William Johnson’s Eighth Amendment medical-care claims against S. Posson and Doctor Ashby were resolved against him. The court granted Ashby judgment on the pleadings and granted both defendants summary judgment, and it closed the file.
What happened
Johnson v. Posson involved Calvin William Johnson’s claims that prison medical staff were deliberately indifferent to his ankle injury by failing to provide orthopedic footwear and adequate care. Johnson, who represented himself, sought money damages from S. Posson and Doctor Ashby; the court had previously dismissed claims against other defendants without prejudice.
Posson and Ashby asked for judgment on the pleadings, which tests whether the complaint itself states a legal claim, and for summary judgment, which applies when the evidence shows no important factual dispute requiring a trial. Johnson did not oppose the motion. The record showed that he received repeated medical visits, medication, insoles, a cane, X-rays, and a second ankle surgery.
Judge Sadge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment. The court ruled that Ashby was not responsible for denying orthopedic shoes and that neither Ashby nor Posson had acted with deliberate indifference to Johnson’s serious medical needs. The court directed the clerk to close the file.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Posson · No. 4:19-cv-03883
- Yvonne Rogers
- July 30, 2021
Background
Calvin William Johnson, a former state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that medical care for his ankle injury at several California prisons violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. He sought monetary damages.
Johnson had surgery for a broken ankle on June 8, 2018, while housed at High Desert State Prison. He was later transferred to Sierra Conservation Center and then to Correctional Training Facility. His claims in this action focused on the denial of orthopedic shoes and related treatment at those facilities. The court previously dismissed claims against the Sierra Conservation Center defendants, Warden C. Koenig, and unidentified defendants without prejudice. The remaining claims were against S. Posson and Doctor Ashby.
Johnson alleged that he was denied orthopedic shoes on multiple occasions, that the lack of appropriate footwear caused pain and worsened his condition, and that Ashby told him a request for orthopedic shoes had been denied by Ashby’s supervisor. The record showed that Johnson received repeated medical care, including nursing encounters, appointments with Ashby, pain medication, insoles, a cane, X-rays, and a second surgery to remove ankle hardware.
Motions and legal standards
Ashby moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). That motion asks whether, accepting the complaint’s factual allegations as true, the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Both defendants also moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, arguing that Johnson had not exhausted administrative remedies, could not prove his claim, and that they were protected by qualified immunity. Johnson did not file an opposition.
For an Eighth Amendment medical-care claim, a prisoner must show both a serious medical need and a deliberately indifferent response. Deliberate indifference requires more than negligent care or a difference of medical opinion; the official must know of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregard that risk. A defendant must also have caused or participated in the alleged constitutional violation to be liable under § 1983.
Court’s analysis
As to Ashby’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court assumed that denying orthopedic footwear could have placed Johnson at risk of serious harm. But the complaint did not allege that Ashby caused the denial. Instead, it alleged that Ashby tried to order orthopedic shoes and merely informed Johnson that the request had been denied. The court therefore concluded that Johnson had not stated an Eighth Amendment claim against Ashby and granted Ashby’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
As to both defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the court found that the undisputed evidence showed regular treatment for Johnson’s ankle. Ashby requested orthotic boots, ordered X-rays, provided or offered medication and inserts, arranged evaluations, and participated in obtaining the second surgery. The court also found no evidence that Posson played a role in Johnson’s request for orthopedic shoes in the spring of 2019.
The court considered Johnson’s claim that he wore a medical boot for about three months longer than recommended. It found that Johnson had not raised a triable factual dispute showing that either defendant caused the delay or that the delay injured him. The court also found that the denial of orthopedic footwear was not a medically unacceptable course of treatment that exposed Johnson to an excessive risk to his health. It held that neither Ashby nor Posson was deliberately indifferent to Johnson’s serious medical needs.
Because summary judgment resolved the Eighth Amendment claim, the court stated that it did not need to address the defendants’ alternative arguments concerning qualified immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Disposition
The court granted Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Summary Judgment. The order terminated the motion and directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the file.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.