Peasley v. Spearman

Background

David Scott Peasley, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After an appeal and reassignment, one claim remained: Count 6. Peasley alleged that California Training Facility officials Gibson, Lopez, and Orozco denied him access to needed medical care for diabetes on an occasion in September 2013, including a blood test and medication.

The evidence showed that on September 7, Peasley asked Gibson twice for a blood test. Gibson contacted nurses and relayed their response that the request was denied. Peasley also stated that, on an unspecified date, he twice asked Lopez to see medical personnel urgently. According to Peasley, Lopez made calls, relayed that the requests were denied, and gave him a healthcare request form. The opinion states that Peasley provided no evidence and that the medical records showed no actions or involvement by Orozco in these incidents.

Summary-judgment ruling

Summary judgment is granted when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court applied the rule that prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment when they deliberately disregard a known substantial risk of serious harm to a prisoner’s health.

The court concluded that Gibson did not deny Peasley medical care because Gibson relayed Peasley’s requests to a nurse. The court found no evidence that Gibson, who was not a medical professional, had the expertise or authority to override the nurse’s decision. It also found no evidence that the absence of medical orders for the requested tests was within Gibson’s control.

As to Lopez, the court found that he made phone calls and gave Peasley the form needed to seek care. The court stated that there was no medical professional’s opinion or other evidence showing that Peasley’s requests were urgent or that the form was inappropriate for urgent needs. It also stated that there was no evidence Peasley suffered medical harm. The court found no evidence that Orozco denied or failed to provide medical care and said Peasley’s conclusory allegations were unsupported by specific facts. The court therefore found no triable factual issues showing deliberate indifference by any of the three defendants.

Other motions and disposition

The court denied Peasley leave to file a proposed amended complaint. The proposed amendment would have added an assault claim based on facts known to Peasley in 2016, and the court found that he had not shown cause for the extraordinary delay in seeking permission to amend.

The court granted Peasley’s motion for an extension of time to file his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. It granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the remaining claim, ordered the clerk to enter judgment, and directed the clerk to close the file. The judge’s signature is not clearly readable in the provided text, so the judge is identified here as the court rather than by a guessed name.