Harris v. Mayeri

Background

David D. Harris, a prisoner representing himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. Stephen Mayeri, a staff psychiatrist at Salinas Valley State Prison. The remaining claim alleged that Mayeri was deliberately indifferent to Harris’s serious mental-health needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Harris sought monetary and punitive damages.

Harris alleged that Mayeri failed to increase his level of mental-health care, failed to prevent Harris’s suicide attempt, failed to keep him away from sharp objects, and ended his bupropion prescription. Mayeri moved for summary judgment. Harris was given an opportunity to oppose the motion but did not do so. The court nevertheless considered Harris’s verified complaint as evidence opposing summary judgment.

Evidence and legal standard

Summary judgment is appropriate 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. The court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to Harris and did not make credibility determinations.

For an Eighth Amendment medical-care claim, a prisoner must show both a sufficiently serious medical need and that the defendant knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and consciously disregarded it. A difference of opinion about medically acceptable treatment is not enough; the prisoner must show that the chosen treatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and was selected with conscious disregard of an excessive risk.

Court’s analysis

The court agreed that Harris’s mental-health problems presented a serious medical need. But it concluded that the record did not support the required finding of deliberate indifference. Harris had been placed in the highest level of mental-health care provided by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, received frequent care from Mayeri and the treatment team, received medication adjustments, attended or was enrolled in therapy groups, and was placed in one-on-one observation when staff believed additional monitoring was needed.

As to the observation decision, Mayeri ended Harris’s one-on-one observation on March 14, 2019, after Harris denied suicidal or self-harm thoughts and reported feeling better. Harris attempted suicide with a razor on March 17, when Mayeri was not on duty. The court found no evidence that Mayeri had observed or been told of conduct showing an impending suicidal crisis before the attempt.

As to the razor, the court found that custody staff—not Mayeri—were responsible for searching for prohibited objects. The record did not show that Mayeri knew Harris had obtained the razor or consciously disregarded a risk created by it. Medical staff provided immediate care after Harris cut himself and reported swallowing the razor.

As to bupropion, the court found no evidence that it was the only effective or appropriate medication. The record showed that Harris had experienced suicidal thoughts while taking bupropion and that Mayeri adjusted other medications and offered additional treatment options. The court characterized Harris’s evidence as showing a disagreement about the adequacy of his treatment, which did not establish an Eighth Amendment violation.

Qualified immunity

Qualified immunity is a defense that can protect a government official from money damages unless the official violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. The court ruled that the evidence did not establish an Eighth Amendment violation. It also ruled that, even if a violation had been shown, the law did not clearly establish that Mayeri acted unlawfully by treating Harris’s repeated requests and self-harm claims as related to maladaptive behavior, particularly because Harris was receiving continuing mental-health care and other treatment teams agreed with Mayeri’s assessment.

Disposition

Judge Susan Illston granted Mayeri’s motion for summary judgment. The court stated that Mayeri was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Harris’s complaint and directed the clerk to close the file. The opinion did not state that the judgment was with or without prejudice.