The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 63).
A. Plaintiff's Allegations
Plaintiff names the following as defendants: Susan Hubbard, Claude Finn, C. Wright, M. Fox, J. Simmons, and Brady. Plaintiff alleges that he was received by the CDCR at the Deuel Vocational Institution ("DVI") on April 21, 2008. He states that, pursuant to procedures enacted by the director of the CDCR, plaintiff was given a "3355-(a) medical examination" upon his arrival and found to be clear of any chronic diseases. He adds:
On April 21, 2008, plaintiff was subjected to poor sanitation, an unconstitutional medical system, poor health care, and prison overcrowding which was the primary cause of the substandard medical care that plaintiff received on May 25, 2008, at DVI.
According to plaintiff, on May 23, 2008, his right foot became infected due to "contagious germs and poor sanitation 'staph poisoning.'" He states that, by May 25th, a toe on his right foot had become swollen, causing him severe pain. Plaintiff claims that, due to the severe pain, he lost consciousness upon standing up in his cell, causing him to fall and injure his head. Plaintiff states that, immediately after he regained consciousness, defendant Wright was notified and became aware of plaintiff's need for medical attention. He adds that defendant Wright stated he would inform the medical staff of his needs.
Plaintiff states that defendants Simmons and Brady, who are prison medical personnel, were made aware of his medical needs but nonetheless failed to "provide prompt medical treatment. . . ." Plaintiff claims that he was hospitalized on May 28, 2008, as a result of the alleged delay in providing treatment.
He claims that defendant Fox, the chief medical officer, is liable for failing to properly train defendants Simmons and Bradley. He states that defendant Wright is responsible for failing to ensure that plaintiff received proper medical care. According to plaintiff, defendant Finn is responsible by virtue of his role as prison warden, respectively.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment is supported by their declarations, portions of plaintiff's prison file, and excerpts from plaintiff's deposition. Defendants' evidence shows:
1. At all relevant times, plaintiff was an inmate at DVI.
2. On April 21, 2008, plaintiff arrived at DVI and was examined by Clair Calamayan, a registered nurse.
3. On April 29, 2008, plaintiff was examined by A. Boatsaw, M.D.,who observed dry skin on the plantar aspect of plaintiff's feet and sores between his toes. Dr. Boatsaw prescribed Tolnaflate 1% cream for these conditions.
4. On May 18, 2008, plaintiff submitted a medical call slip complaining that his athlete's foot was not healing and that he was in pain.
5. Plaintiff was examined on May 20, 2008, by C.L. Doud, a registered nurse, who diagnosed athlete's foot and continued the prescription for Tolnaflate cream.
6. On May 25, 2008, plaintiff hit his head and lost consciousness. Upon regaining consciousness, plaintiff asked another inmate to bring an officer to his cell for assistance.
7. Though plaintiff's request for medical attention was relayed to the prison's triage medical personnel, medical personnel did not respond until May 28, 2008, at which time plaintiff was treated at the prison medical facility and at an outside hospital.
1. At all relevant times, Hubbard was the Director of the Division of Adult Institutions for the California Department of ...