Scott v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Background

Donnie Scott, an incarcerated person at Folsom State Prison, brought this civil-rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Pelican Bay State Prison doctor D. Kumar and nurse E. Golding violated the Eighth Amendment by deliberately disregarding his serious medical needs after he injured and severely dislocated and fractured his right thumb during an August 31, 2018 riot.

Scott first sought medical care on September 7, 2018. He reported severe pain, swelling, inability to move the thumb, and his belief that it was broken. Golding provided over-the-counter pain medication and submitted a routine request for a primary-care appointment, but did not provide a splint. Scott was not seen by a primary-care provider until October 4, outside the prison’s stated two-week period for routine requests.

Kumar ordered an x-ray, which reported abnormal alignment and possible dislocation or subluxation but no identifiable fracture. Kumar later made urgent referrals and arranged examinations, imaging, and consultations with orthopedic specialists. Scott argued that Kumar failed to respond to an earlier letter, failed to provide a splint promptly, failed to tell him about evidence of fractures, and described the injury as a dislocation rather than a fracture. The parties disputed some facts, including whether Kumar received Scott’s letter and whether a splint was offered before November 6.

Summary-judgment 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 as a matter of law. At this stage, the court viewed disputed evidence in the light most favorable to Scott and did not decide witness credibility or weigh conflicting evidence.

To prove deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, Scott had to present evidence that he had a serious medical need, that the defendant knew of a substantial risk of serious harm, that the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to address it, and that the defendant’s conduct caused harm. A disagreement about medical treatment, standing alone, is not enough.

Golding’s motion

The court found a triable issue—a factual dispute that a jury could resolve—for Scott’s claim that Golding violated the Eighth Amendment on September 7, 2018, by failing to provide a splint. The court noted that the medical education materials given to Scott indicated that a thumb sprain generally should be immobilized with a brace, cast, or splint. It also found that Golding had not shown, with specific evidence, that the general nursing assessment, over-the-counter medication, routine follow-up request, and nearly month-long delay were reasonable responses to the risk posed by a possible broken thumb.

The court found no triable issue concerning Scott’s other claims against Golding. Those claims involved allegedly pressuring Scott to sign presurgical forms, being present at his appointments, making insinuating thumb gestures, and having him removed from the clinic on one occasion. The court concluded that these events did not cause harm, interfere with medical treatment, or constitute failures to address the serious risk to Scott’s thumb.

The court therefore granted in part and denied in part Golding’s summary-judgment motion. It denied the motion as to the September 7 splint claim and granted it as to the remainder of Golding’s medical treatment.

Kumar’s motion

The court found triable issues concerning whether Kumar violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to examine Scott before October 4, 2018, and by failing to provide a splint before November 6, 2018. Regarding the earlier treatment, the court presumed for summary-judgment purposes that Kumar received Scott’s September 10 letter requesting urgent medical care. Scott then received no care for the thumb until October 4, although prison regulations required routine requests to be addressed within fourteen days.

The court also found a factual dispute about the lack of a splint before November 6. Viewing the evidence in Scott’s favor, it found that Kumar may have been aware of a possible broken thumb and that the medical materials and later specialist recommendations supported the need for a splint.

The court rejected Scott’s other claims against Kumar. It concluded that Kumar’s failure to identify the x-ray as showing a fracture, his description of the injury as a dislocation or subluxation, the two-week interval before the orthopedic consultation, and the later shift from urgent to routine referrals did not violate the Eighth Amendment. The court found that Kumar took reasonable steps, that the descriptions were consistent with the imaging and specialist records, and that Scott had not shown that these actions caused the permanent thumb damage.

The court therefore granted in part and denied in part Kumar’s summary-judgment motion. It denied the motion as to the claims concerning treatment before October 4 and a splint before November 6, and granted it as to the remainder of Kumar’s medical treatment.

Referral and stay

Judge Gilliam referred the two remaining Eighth Amendment claims to Magistrate Judge Robert Illman for settlement proceedings under the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. The court stayed further proceedings while that referral was pending. The order stated that the case would receive a new scheduling order if it was not settled.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part both summary-judgment motions, referred the remaining claims to settlement, and stayed the action.