Mkrtchyan v. Sacramento Cnty.
| Docket Number | 2:17-cv-02366-DAD-KJN |
| Decision Date | 14 December 2023 |
| Parties | ARAM MKRTCHYAN, Plaintiff, v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC NOS. 69, 71)
This matter is before the court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 69, 71.) Defendants move for summary judgment in their favor on all of plaintiff's claims, and plaintiff moves for summary judgment in his favor with respect to his first, fourth, fifth, ninth, tenth, and twelfth claims. (See id.) The pending motions were taken under submission by the previously assigned district judge on May 20, 2022.[1] (Doc. No. 77.) For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant in part and deny in part defendants' motion for summary judgment and deny plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.
On November 12, 2017, plaintiff Aram Mkrtchyan filed the complaint initiating this civil rights action. (Doc. No. 1.) Following the court's rulings on a motion to dismiss and a motion for reconsideration, and pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, plaintiff filed the operative third amended complaint (“TAC”) on July 29, 2021. (Doc. No 40.)
In his TAC, plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against defendant Sacramento County (the “County”) (claim 1); defendants Sacramento County Sheriff Department Deputies Dominguez, Yang, Meier and Grout (the “deputy defendants”) in their individual capacities (claim 2); defendants Dr. Grant Nugent and Nurse Nancy Gallagher in their supervisory capacities (claim 4); and defendant Nurse Gallagher in her individual capacity (claim 5). (Doc. No. 40.) In addition, plaintiff asserts a federal claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) against the deputy defendants (claim 3). (Id.) Furthermore, plaintiff asserts state law claims for IIED against the deputy defendants (claim 6); negligence against the deputy defendants (claim 7); violation of the Bane Act, California Civil Code § 52.1, against the deputy defendants (claim 8); failure to summon medical care in violation of California Government Code § 845.6 against the deputy defendants (claim 9); violation of California Government Code §§ 815.2(a) and 815.6 against the County (claim 10); medical malpractice against defendants Dr. Nugent and Nurse Gallagher (claim 11); and failure to provide timely medical care for inmates in violation of California Government Code § 845.6 against the County (claim 12). (Id.)
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on April 28, 2022. (Doc No. 69.) The same day, plaintiff filed his own motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 71.) On May 12, 2022, the parties filed their respective opposition briefs. (Doc. Nos. 73, 74.) The cross-motions for summary judgment were taken under submission on the papers by the previously assigned district judge on May 20, 2022. (Doc. No. 77.) On May 23, 2022 defendants filed a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 78.) After receiving an extension of time in which to do so, on May 27, 2022, plaintiff filed a reply in support of his motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 80.)
On July 11, 2023, the undersigned granted plaintiff's request for judicial notice of the existence of the court's decision in Mollica v. County of Sacramento, No. 2:19-cv-02017-KJM-DB, 2023 WL 3481145 (E.D. Cal. May 16, 2023). (Doc. No. 94.) On September 30, 2023, the undersigned denied plaintiff's motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint, and on October 10, 2023, the undersigned denied plaintiff's request for a continuance with respect to the court's ruling on defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). (Doc. Nos. 96, 97.)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND[2]
This case encompasses claims based on a number of incidents that purportedly transpired during plaintiff's confinement in the County's jails between July 12, 2016 and April 23, 2017, including the alleged failure of certain defendants to promptly send plaintiff out for a necessary orthopedic surgical consultation to address a calcaneal fracture (fracture to the heel bone) that plaintiff sustained while being held at the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center (“RCCC”) Jail in August 2016 and various other unrelated occurrences involving the deputy defendants at the County's Main Jail.
Plaintiff names seven defendants in the TAC. (Doc. No. 40.) While plaintiff's statement of undisputed facts sheds light on the role of defendants Nurse Gallagher and Dr. Nugent in the events alleged by plaintiff, neither party clearly explains in their respective statements the roles of the remaining defendants. However, in the operative TAC, plaintiff alleges that the County is a public entity that operates and manages the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department (“SCSD”), which is responsible for the staffing and operation of the Main Jail at 651 I Street, Sacramento, California and the RCCC Jail. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Plaintiff also alleges that the four deputy defendants were employed by the SCSD and served as deputy sheriffs at the Main Jail during the relevant events. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-10.)
Defendant Dr. Nugent served as the director of the SCSD's correctional health services (“CHS”). (PSUF ¶ 38.) In his capacity as medical director, defendant Dr. Nugent was responsible for overseeing the delivery of medical services provided by the CHS, as well as the formulation of policies and procedures and utilization review. (PSUF ¶ 39; see also Doc. No. 693 at 294.) The CHS medical director reports to the chief of the CHS. (Doc. No. 69-3 at 294.) The parties dispute whether defendant Dr. Nugent had ultimate responsibility for medical care. (PSUF ¶ 39.)
Defendant Nurse Gallagher, a registered nurse, held the position of administrative case manager at the case management unit (“CMU”) of the Main Jail. (DUF ¶¶ 49, 51; PUF ¶ 24.) During the events relevant to this case, she was not acting as a nurse or providing medical advice; her responsibilities primarily pertained to administrative duties. (DUF ¶ 52.) Her job duties included making appointments with outside facilities for medical evaluations. (DUF ¶ 49; PUF ¶ 24.) She is not an orthopedic expert, and she did not have medical knowledge about when a heel bone begins to heal. (DUF ¶ 53.)
On July 12, 2016, plaintiff was arrested for the unauthorized use of utility services and booked into the County's Main Jail. (DUF ¶ 1.) On July 29, 2016, plaintiff was transferred to RCCC. (DUF ¶ 2.) On August 29, 2016, while in custody at RCCC, plaintiff sustained a fracture to his right calcaneal bone. (DUF ¶¶ 2-4.)[3]
On August 30, 2016, plaintiff was transferred to the medical housing unit (“MHU”). (DUF ¶ 7.) Between August 30 and September 2, 2016, plaintiff was repeatedly examined by medical staff and orthopedic doctors, and x-rays were taken which documented the fracture to his right calcaneal bone. (DUF ¶ 8; PUF ¶ 2; PSUF ¶ 2.) On August 31, 2016, plaintiff was issued crutches and placed into a cast for his injury. (Doc. No. 69-3 at 287; see also DUF ¶ 9.)
On September 2, 2016, plaintiff met with orthopedist Dr. Arnoldas Kungys. (DUF ¶ 10; PUF ¶ 3; PSUF ¶ 3.) Dr. Kungys considered plaintiff's fracture to be a significant injury. (PUF ¶ 6; PSUF ¶ 6.) Dr. Kungys recommended surgical evaluation for an open reductional internal fixation (“ORIF”) of the calcaneus, along with splinting and elevation, and he explained to plaintiff why the surgery needed to be performed within about two weeks. (PUF ¶ 3; PSUF ¶ 3.) Plaintiff testified at his deposition that during the September 2, 2016 meeting, Dr. Kungys informed plaintiff that he required surgery within seven to ten days, and that without the surgery, the bone would start healing, making a subsequent ORIF surgery impossible. (Doc. No. 71-3 at 69-70.)
That same day, on September 2, 2016, Dr. Nageswaran, a CHS medical doctor, prepared an outside orthopedic referral with Dr. Kungys's handwritten notes, a referral which “is believed to have been sent to [defendant Nurse] Gallagher.”[4] (DUF ¶ 10.)
On September 12, 2016, Dr. Janet Abshire, a CHS medical doctor, examined plaintiff and entered the following Subjective, Objective, Assessment and Plan “SOAP note” in plaintiff's medical record:
(PUF ¶ 10; PSUF ¶ 10.) Additionally, in a “Consultation/ Case Management Request” dated September 12, 2016, Dr. Abshire wrote, “Outside ortho ORIF surgery recommended, ASAP, review timeframe of window with ortho.” (Doc. No. 71-3 at 581.)
On September 15, 2016, Dr. Lord, a CHS medical doctor, saw plaintiff and noted in plaintiff's medical record that Tylenol was not helping with the pain in plaintiff's foot, and Dr. Lord prescribed Naproxen for plaintiff. (PUF ¶ 11.)
Defendant Nurse Gallagher could not recall plaintiff or when she first received the consultation note for plaintiff. (DUF ¶ 41.) On September 23, 2016, defendant Nurse Gallagher stated in plaintiff's medical record: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial