Zambrano v. Golding

Background

Juan Carlos Zambrano, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His amended complaint alleged that several defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs during two periods: July 27–28, 2018, and July 28, 2018–January 25, 2019. The alleged medical condition involved right-knee pain.

The court previously terminated defendant Williams because she was deceased. On September 20, 2021, it granted summary judgment on the merits for defendants Golding, Blakely, Olsen, Thomas, Yang, Nasr, and Kumar. Defendant John Kim had appeared in the case but had not joined the earlier summary-judgment motion, which was filed before his appearance.

In that earlier order, the court told Zambrano that the adequacy of his Eighth Amendment claim against Kim was in question. The court explained that Kim’s only interactions with Zambrano occurred when Zambrano was seen at TTA and admitted overnight from July 27 to 28, 2018. The court gave Zambrano 28 days to explain whether he wished to proceed against Kim and, if so, to identify record evidence showing a genuine dispute of material fact. Zambrano did not respond by the deadline.

Legal standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the party entitled to judgment wins as a matter of law. The court explained that it may grant summary judgment on its own initiative, including for a party that did not file the motion, if the losing party received reasonable notice that the claim’s sufficiency was at issue and had a full and fair opportunity to respond.

Court’s analysis

The court relied on its prior review of the record. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Zambrano, it had found no genuine issue about whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need during July 27–28, 2018. It had also found that the treatment during that period—including the decision not to examine Zambrano’s right knee immediately—was not medically unacceptable under the circumstances and was not selected with conscious disregard of an excessive risk to his health.

Because Kim’s only interaction with Zambrano occurred during that same period, the court concluded that the record presented no triable issue about whether Kim violated the Eighth Amendment. The court further found that Zambrano had received reasonable notice that his claim against Kim was in question and had a full and fair opportunity to address it.

Disposition

The court sua sponte, meaning on its own initiative, granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Kim. It terminated Kim from the action. Because Kim was the only remaining defendant, the clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and against Zambrano and close the case. All pending motions were terminated as moot.