Wright v. Airway Heights Corr. Ctr. MSU
| Decision Date | 08 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:20-cv-00436-MKD |
| Parties | WILLIAM J. WRIGHT, a single person, Plaintiff, v. AIRWAY HEIGHTS CORRECTION CENTER MSU, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DON MCINTYRE, Health Services Manger 2, and JAMES KEY, Superintendent, Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Washington |
WILLIAM J. WRIGHT, a single person, Plaintiff,
v.
AIRWAY HEIGHTS CORRECTION CENTER MSU, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DON MCINTYRE, Health Services Manger 2, and JAMES KEY, Superintendent, Defendants
No. 2:20-cv-00436-MKD
United States District Court, E.D. Washington
December 8, 2022
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ECF NO. 38
MARY K. DIMKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 38. On October 27, 2022, the Court heard argument on the motion. See ECF No. 63. Douglas D. Phelps appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Taylor M. Hennessey appeared on behalf of Defendants.
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, filed in Spokane County Superior Court and removed to this Court, see ECF Nos. 1, 1-3, brings claims against Airway Heights Correctional Center (“AHCC”), the Washington State Department of Corrections
(“WDOC”), Don McIntyre, and James Key alleging (1) a violation of his Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) a violation of his article I, sections 3, 7, 14, and 35 rights under the Washington Constitution; (3) Monell liability under Section 1983; (4) medical negligence; and (5) negligent training, retention, and supervision. ECF No. 1-3 at 14-19. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on all claims. See ECF No. 38. For reasons stated herein, the Court grants Defendants' motion and dismisses all claims in the Amended Complaint with prejudice.
BACKGROUND
The undisputed facts are as follows. Plaintiff was an inmate incarcerated at AHCC at the times relevant to his Complaint. ECF No. 1-3 at 9-10 ¶ 1.1; ECF No. 4 at 1 ¶ 1.1. Defendant WDOC operates AHCC. ECF No. 1-3 at 10 ¶ 1.2; ECF No. 4 at 1-2 ¶ 1.2. Defendants James R. Key and Don McIntyre are employed at AHCC as a superintendent and health services manager, respectively. ECF No. 13 at 10 ¶¶ 1.4-1.5; ECF No. 4 at 2 ¶¶ 1.4-1.5.
On August 13, 2015, Plaintiff consulted with Dr. Craig Barrow concerning left foot pain. ECF No. 39 at 3 ¶ 7; ECF No. 49 at 2. On September 18, 2015, Dr. Barrow performed a surgery to remove medical hardware from Plaintiff's left foot. ECF No. 39 at 3 ¶¶ 7-8; ECF No. 49 at 2.
Plaintiff's pain continued, and on September 1, 2018, Plaintiff sent a request to AHCC staff for further surgery to address ongoing pain in his left foot. ECF No. 39 at 4 ¶ 11; ECF No. 49 at 5-6. That request was forwarded to AHCC's Care Review Committee (“CRC”)[1], who ultimately declined to authorize further surgery on October 24, 2018. ECF No. 39 at 4 ¶¶ 11-12; ECF No. 49 at 6. In its report declining further surgery, the CRC referenced the opinion of a WDOC orthopedist, who opined that “[n]othing on the x-ray requires surgery[,]” surgery would not improve Plaintiff's pain, and Plaintiff was able to perform his activities of daily living. ECF No. 39 at 4 ¶ 12; ECF No. 49 at 6; ECF No. 47-5 at 4. The CRC recommended stiff-soled shoes with rocker bottoms for both feet to help alleviate Plaintiff's pain. ECF No. 39 at 4 ¶ 13; ECF No. 49 at 6; ECF No. 47-5 at 4.
On December 17, 2019, Plaintiff consulted with Dr. Jacqueline Babol, a community provider and podiatrist, concerning his left foot condition. ECF No. 13 at 12 ¶ 2.16; ECF No. 39 at 4 ¶ 14; ECF No. 41-5 at 4-5; ECF No. 49 at 6. Dr. Babol did not subsequently perform surgery on Plaintiff's left foot. ECF No. 39 at 4-5 ¶ 14; ECF No. 49 at 6.
Plaintiff transferred to a work release program on March 31, 2021, and was released from custody on July 29, 2021. ECF No. 39 at 5 ¶ 15; ECF No. 49 at 6.
Plaintiff filed an initial Complaint on September 2, 2020, and an Amended Complaint on November 3, 2020, both in Spokane County Superior Court. ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3. Defendants filed a notice of removal on November 25, 2020, and answered the Amended Complaint on December 2, 2020. ECF Nos. 1, 4.
Defendants filed the instant motion on July 11, 2022. ECF No. 38.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
A district court must grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Barnes v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 934 F.3d 901, 906 (9th Cir. 2019). “A fact is ‘material' only if it might affect the outcome of the case, and a dispute is ‘genuine' only if a reasonable trier of fact could resolve the issue in the non-movant's favor.” Fresno Motors, LLC v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC,
771 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).
The moving party “bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,'” that demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323 (quoting former Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). A moving party who does not bear the burden of persuasion at trial can succeed on summary judgment either by producing evidence that negates an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim or defense, or by showing that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence to prove an essential element. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000).
Once the moving party has satisfied its burden, to survive summary judgment, the non-moving party must demonstrate by affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or admission on file “specific facts” showing that there is a genuine dispute of material fact for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324.
The Court “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inference in the nonmoving party's favor.” Rookaird v. BNSF Ry. Co., 908 F.3d 451, 459 (9th Cir. 2018). “Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate
inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge . . .” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255. “Summary judgment is improper ‘where divergent ultimate inferences may reasonably be drawn from the undisputed facts.'” Fresno Motors, 771 F.3d at 1125 (quoting Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods., Inc., 454 F.3d 975, 988 (9th Cir. 2006)).
DISCUSSION
A. Allegations Concerning 2015 Surgery
In his responsive pleadings, Plaintiff offers factual allegations relating to Dr. Barrow's 2015 surgery in support of his claims. See ECF No. 49 at 5-6 (“Mr. Wright was experiencing severe pain from his left foot and sought the previously recommended surgery.... Surgery that Dr. Barrow had wanted to schedule with the Department of Corrections . . . Dr. Barrow recommended surgery on September 18, 2015. This decision by CRC . . . was contrary to Dr. Barrow's records and recommendation to patient.... The CRC declined treatment refusing to provide surgical treatment recommended by Dr. Barrow[.]”). Plaintiff's Amended Complaint makes only incidental references to Dr. Barrow's 2015 surgery and does not offer allegations against Defendants for their conduct in 2015 and 2016. See ECF No. 1-3 at 10-11 ¶¶ 2.1-2.3, 13 ¶ 2.21. In opposition to this motion, Plaintiff seeks to relate his claims back to decisions allegedly made by the CRC near the time of Dr. Barrow's 2015 hardware removal surgery. At the
hearing, Plaintiff's counsel argued that Defendants' employees discouraged Dr. Barrow from performing the surgery he had recommended in 2015, and that this at least represented a factual dispute weighing against summary judgment.
Plaintiff cannot rely upon factual allegations from 2015 and 2016 to support his claims. First, there are no facts indicating that Defendants Key or McIntyre, or the CRC, to the extent Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were responsible for the CRC, had any involvement with Plaintiff's medical care in 2015 and 2016.[2]Second, Plaintiff has not given proper notice that any of his claims against Defendants derive from medical care in 2015 or 2016. “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that the allegations in the complaint give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,” which is not satisfied by “vague references” to underlying facts. Lehman v. Nelson, 862 F.3d 1203, 1211, 1213 (9th Cir. 2017) (quotations omitted). Vague references to the medical care Plaintiff received in 2015 were insufficient to put Defendants on notice that Plaintiff was asserting a claim based on their 2015 conduct. Plaintiff has not sought leave to further amend the complaint and may not
do so in argument opposing summary judgment. See Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Serv., 535 F.3d 1058, 1080 (9th Cir. 2008); Pickern v. Pier 1 Imps. (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968-69 (9th Cir. 2006); Wasco Prods. v. Southwall Techs., Inc., 435 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2006). Finally, as Defendants point out, the applicable statute of limitations for these events has likely expired,[3] although the Court need not make specific findings of untimeliness at this time.
Plaintiff presents no evidence that Dr. Barrow recommended further surgery as medically necessary, let alone evidence that Defendants ignored that surgery recommendation. At Plaintiff's follow-up appointment in October 2015, Dr. Barrow did not recommend further surgery as medically necessary, notwithstanding Plaintiff's continuing toe pain. ECF No. 47-2 at 15; ECF No. 23-16 at 11-12.
It would be procedurally and factually unfounded to construe Plaintiff's claims to include alleged conduct from 2015 and 2016. Plaintiff's claims are therefore limited to the allegations in the Amended Complaint, which concern Defendants' alleged conduct from September 2018 forward.
B. 42...
To continue reading
Request your trial