Fox v. Uribe

Background

Leonard James Fox, a California inmate representing himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical personnel at Salinas Valley State Prison. The operative amended complaint asserted Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The court had previously dismissed a separate deliberate-indifference-to-safety claim for failure to state a claim.

Fox alleged that he suffered a second-degree burn to his left foot on November 10, 2016, fell down stairs and injured his back on November 15, 2016, and later experienced daily extreme pain. He claimed that Dr. Thao Nguyen intentionally discontinued prescribed pain medication on May 11, 2017, even though he told her he was in pain. He also claimed that Dr. Reetika Kumar and Dr. Brittany Brizendine failed to respond to his complaints through the prison’s inmate-request and grievance processes.

Fox did not file an opposition to the summary-judgment motion. The court nevertheless treated his verified amended complaint as evidence opposing the motion because a verified complaint may serve that function when it is based on personal knowledge and states specific admissible facts.

Summary-judgment standard

The court explained that summary judgment is proper when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court viewed the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Fox but stated that he still had to identify evidence creating a genuine issue for trial.

Dr. Nguyen

The court held that Fox had not shown a genuine dispute of material fact on his deliberate-indifference claim against Nguyen. Before Nguyen’s May 11, 2017 examination, Fox had frequently failed to take Oxcarbazepine and other prescribed medications and had said that Oxcarbazepine was not helping. Nguyen’s examination showed no motor or sensory deficit, normal reflexes, full hip movement, no back tenderness, and no objective evidence supporting the level of disability Fox claimed. Nguyen also observed Fox squat, retrieve, and throw a ball without using his cane.

The court concluded that the evidence did not show Nguyen knew facts indicating an excessive risk of serious harm and actually drew that inference. It further concluded that Fox’s claim amounted to a disagreement over medical treatment, not deliberate indifference. Fox did not show that discontinuing Oxcarbazepine was medically unacceptable under the circumstances or that Nguyen consciously disregarded an excessive health risk. The court therefore granted summary judgment to Nguyen on this claim.

Dr. Kumar

The court rejected Fox’s claim against Kumar based on her handling of his prison health-care appeals. It explained that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to a prison grievance or administrative-appeal system, or to a particular response to a grievance.

The court also rejected supervisory liability. Kumar was not personally involved in discontinuing Fox’s medication because the appeals reached her after Nguyen had already made that decision. In addition, because the court found no underlying constitutional violation by Nguyen, Fox could not establish supervisory liability based on Kumar’s knowledge or approval of Nguyen’s conduct. The evidence also showed that Kumar reviewed the relevant medical records and appeal materials, and Fox presented no evidence that she acted with reckless or callous indifference. The court granted summary judgment to Kumar.

Dr. Brizendine

The court held that Fox had not shown a genuine dispute of material fact concerning Brizendine. Brizendine was not working at Salinas Valley State Prison when Nguyen treated Fox on May 11, 2017, had no responsibility for the prison’s medical care or daily operations at that time, and had no involvement in Nguyen’s treatment or Kumar’s review. Her name did not appear in the supporting documents attached to Fox’s amended complaint or in the inmate-appeal records submitted by the defendants. The court therefore granted summary judgment to Brizendine.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Nguyen, Kumar, and Brizendine. The order states that the Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against them were dismissed with prejudice and that the motion terminated Docket No. 33. Because the court found no constitutional violation, it did not reach the defendants’ qualified-immunity argument.