Fox v. Uribe

Background

Leonard James Fox, a California inmate proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical personnel at Salinas Valley State Prison. His amended complaint alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, in connection with treatment for back pain and pain management.

Fox alleged that he burned his left foot on November 10, 2016, then injured his back in a stairway fall on November 15, 2016. He claimed that Dr. Thao Nguyen intentionally discontinued his prescribed pain medication on May 11, 2017, even though he told her he was in pain. He also claimed that Drs. Reetika Kim Kumar and Brittany Brizendine failed to respond to his complaints through the prison appeal process. The court had previously dismissed a separate deliberate-indifference-to-safety claim for failure to state a claim, but allowed the medical-needs claims to proceed.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is a decision entered without a trial 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 must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, but the nonmoving party must identify specific evidence that could support a trial.

Dr. Nguyen

The court held that Fox did not present evidence showing that Dr. Nguyen knew he faced a substantial risk of serious harm and consciously disregarded that risk. Before seeing Dr. Nguyen, Fox had frequently failed to take Oxcarbazepine and other prescribed medications and had stated that Oxcarbazepine was not effective. During the May 11, 2017 examination, Dr. Nguyen observed no motor or sensory deficit, normal reflexes, full hip movement, and no back tenderness. She also observed Fox squat, retrieve a ball, stand, and throw it without his cane.

Based on the examination, her observations, and Fox’s medical records, Dr. Nguyen concluded that the records did not support chronic back pain requiring opioid medication. She discontinued Oxcarbazepine and reordered Ibuprofen as needed, while limiting the duration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use because of the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. The court found that Fox’s disagreement with Dr. Nguyen’s treatment choice was insufficient to establish deliberate indifference. It granted summary judgment to Dr. Nguyen on this claim.

Dr. Kumar

The court rejected Fox’s claim against Dr. Kumar based on her handling of his medical appeals. It explained that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to a prison grievance or appeal system, or to receive a particular response to a grievance. The court also found no basis for supervisory liability. Dr. Kumar was not personally involved in Dr. Nguyen’s decision to discontinue Oxcarbazepine, and there was no underlying constitutional violation by Dr. Nguyen that could support supervisory liability.

The court further found that Dr. Kumar reviewed the relevant medical records and appeal issues and that Fox offered no evidence showing reckless or callous indifference to his rights. It granted summary judgment to Dr. Kumar.

Dr. Brizendine

The court found no genuine factual dispute concerning Dr. Brizendine. The evidence showed that she was not working at Salinas Valley State Prison when Dr. Nguyen treated Fox and had no responsibility for the facility’s medical care or daily operations at that time. Her name did not appear in the supporting documents or appeal records identified by the court. Apart from Fox’s conclusory allegation that she knew about his pain, there was no evidence of a causal connection between Dr. Brizendine and the alleged constitutional violation. The court granted summary judgment to Dr. Brizendine.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The order states that the Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against Dr. T. Nguyen, Dr. K. Kumar, and Dr. B. Brizendine were dismissed with prejudice. The court stated that, because it found no constitutional violation, it did not need to reach the defendants’ qualified-immunity argument. The order terminated the motion docketed as No. 33.