Boone v. Allison

Background

Velton Lamont Boone, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials concerning his medical care. The remaining claims concerned the handling of a third knee surgery that Dr. Reys ordered in April 2018 because Boone had limited range of motion and difficulty with stairs, sports, and running.

The surgery was scheduled for June 4, 2018, but was postponed after prison doctors learned that Boone would not have physical-therapy services after surgery. A new physical therapist began work in July 2018. Meanwhile, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation changed its surgery-approval process, assigning review to the Statewide Medical Authorization and Review Team, or SMART. In October 2018, SMART canceled the surgery because it concluded that the risks outweighed the benefits, given that Boone could be housed in a ground-floor cell or a facility without stairs. The opinion also states that the surgery was later performed in 2022.

Claims and analysis

The court addressed five groups of claims alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, which violates the Eighth Amendment when an official knows of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards it.

1. Dr. Reys. Boone argued that Dr. Reys should have ordered the surgery again after the new physical therapist arrived. The court found that the original order was still pending before SMART, so a second order would have been redundant. There was no evidence that a new order would have hastened review or changed SMART’s decision. The court therefore found no deliberate indifference.

2. Dr. Smith and Dr. Tootell. Boone argued that they should have requested his temporary transfer to another prison where physical therapy was available. The court found that a transfer would not necessarily have produced therapy or surgery faster, would have required time and approval by custodial officials, and could have disrupted continuity of care. It concluded that Smith and Tootell acted reasonably by waiting for a new therapist at San Quentin.

3. Davis. Boone argued that Davis, identified as the San Quentin warden, should have ensured that physical therapists were hired more quickly or in sufficient numbers. The court found uncontradicted evidence that Davis was not responsible for hiring physical therapists. It also found no evidence that the later change in the surgery-approval process or SMART’s decision was reasonably foreseeable when hiring decisions were made. The court rejected liability based only on Davis’s supervisory position and found no triable issue on this claim.

4. SMART members. Boone challenged the October 2018 decision by Dr. G. Song, Dr. M. Popori, Dr. P. Tafoya, Dr. D. Ralston, Dr. E. dos Santos-Chen, Dr. A. Vasedeva, and Dr. D. Kalauokalani not to authorize surgery. The court found that they discussed the risks and benefits, considered Boone’s ability to walk on level ground and his range of motion, considered housing him without stairs, and considered the risks and uncertain benefits of an exploratory surgery. It held that a disagreement between medical professionals, or Boone’s disagreement with them, was not enough to show deliberate indifference. The fact that the surgery was later performed in 2022 also did not establish that the 2018 decision violated the Eighth Amendment.

5. Allison and Diaz. Boone sought to dismiss Defendant Allison, identified as a former CDCR Secretary, and replace her with Defendant Diaz, another former CDCR Secretary. The court denied that motion as unnecessary because the claim against either person was based on creating and implementing SMART policies. The court reasoned that this claim depended on the alleged violation by the SMART members, which it had found did not occur.

Other motion and disposition

The court applied the summary-judgment standard, under which judgment is entered when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. It granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It denied Boone’s motion to replace Allison with Diaz as unnecessary and denied Boone’s motion to compel grievance documents about other inmates because those documents were not relevant to Boone’s medical-care claim. Judge Jeffrey S. White directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the file.