Moore v. Salinas Valley State Prison

Background

Kevin Moe Moore, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. Melissa Stolsig, Jonna Dunlap, Alicia Nix, and Lieutenant J. Gomez. He sought money damages and alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious mental-health needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Moore alleged that he submitted three written requests for mental-health care on March 11, May 15, and May 26, 2020. He said the requests referred to family deaths, inability to sleep, hearing voices, and the recurrence of mental-health episodes after he had stopped taking medication. He alleged that the requests were not answered until June 11, 2020, when he met with Dr. Stolsig.

Moore also alleged that on July 3, 2020, he told a correctional officer that he was suicidal. Dunlap, Nix, and Gomez evaluated him and concluded that he was not at immediate risk of suicide. Moore was returned to his cell and attempted suicide later that day by hanging himself. He was found unconscious and unresponsive, taken for medical evaluation, and later placed in a mental-health crisis bed.

Procedural history

The court previously found that Moore stated legally sufficient Eighth Amendment claims against Stolsig, Dunlap, Nix, and Gomez. It struck Moore’s claim against the Salinas Valley State Prison Mental Health Department after Moore chose to remove that claim instead of amending his complaint.

The defendants first moved for summary judgment based on Moore’s alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On March 9, 2023, the court denied that motion without prejudice. It granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ requests for alternative relief, allowing them to file either a summary-judgment motion on the merits or a renewed exhaustion motion under specified circumstances.

The defendants then filed the motion addressed in this order. They argued that the evidence could not support a finding that any defendant violated Moore’s Eighth Amendment rights and that they were entitled to qualified immunity. Moore opposed the motion.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result 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 evidence that could allow a reasonable jury to rule in that party’s favor.

Eighth Amendment claim

The court explained that a prisoner claiming deliberate indifference to serious medical needs must show both a serious medical need and that officials knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. A difference of opinion about medical treatment, or ordinary negligence, is not enough to establish an Eighth Amendment violation.

The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that Moore faced an objectively serious risk of suicide. It nevertheless found that Moore did not produce evidence showing that the defendants were subjectively, or knowingly, indifferent to that risk.

Regarding the July 3 crisis evaluation, the court relied on evidence that the crisis team reviewed Moore’s mental-health records, interviewed him, and assessed his risk factors and protective factors. The team concluded that he had a high long-term risk of suicide but a low immediate risk. The team also knew that Moore was scheduled to see the Interdisciplinary Treatment Team the following week, which could return him to the mental-health program and prescribe medication. The court found no evidence that Dunlap, Nix, or Gomez acted in a way other than responsive and thorough. Moore’s disagreement with their decision to return him to his housing unit was, in the court’s view, only a difference of opinion about treatment.

Regarding Dr. Stolsig, the court found it undisputed that she did not know Moore was expressing suicidal thoughts during their June 11 appointment. Moore did not claim that her referral to the Interdisciplinary Treatment Team was medically unacceptable or that she ignored an immediate suicide risk. The court also noted that Moore did not claim harm resulting directly from that appointment.

The court considered the defendants’ expert evidence that Moore received timely, adequate, and appropriate mental-health care and that the treatment was within the applicable professional standard. The court concluded that the defendants had shown the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact and that no reasonable factfinder could conclude that they acted with deliberate indifference.

Disposition

The court granted Stolsig, Dunlap, Nix, and Gomez’s motion for summary judgment. It dismissed the Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against them with prejudice. The court did not reach the qualified-immunity argument because it found no constitutional violation. The order terminated Docket No. 43.