Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hoskins v. Ngyen

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 9, 2019

ANTHONY HOSKINS, Plaintiff,
v.
L. NGUYEN, et. al., Defendants.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 26]

         Plaintiff Anthony Hoskins is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         Currently before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment, filed March 29, 2019.

         I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

         This action is proceeding against Defendants Nguyen and Baniga for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.[1]

         On January 25, 2018, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint. On February 1, 2018, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order setting, among other things, the deadline to amend the pleadings for August 1, 2018. (ECF No. 16.)

         On April 9, 2018, the Court granted Defendants' request to extend the deadline to file an exhaustion related motion for summary judgment to August 1, 2018. (ECF No. 18.) However, all other deadlines remained in full force and effect. (Id.)

         On September 21, 2018, the Court granted Defendants' second request to modify the scheduling order and extended the deadlines to complete discovery and file a dispositive motion to February 1, 2019 and April 1, 2019, respectively. (ECF No. 21.)

         on February 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint, along with a proposed second amended complaint which was lodged. (ECF Nos. 22, 23.) Defendants filed an opposition on March 5, 2019, and Plaintiff did not file a reply. On March 26, 2019, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint be denied. (ECF No. 25.) The Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full on June 5, 2019, and Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint was denied. (ECF No. 30.)

         As previously stated, on March 29, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.[2](ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition and the time to do has passed. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is deemed submitted without oral argument. Local Rule 230(1).

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Any party may move for summary judgment, and the Court shall 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) (quotation marks omitted); Washington Mut. Inc. v. U.S., 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Each party's position, whether it be that a fact is disputed or undisputed, must be supported by (1) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including but not limited to depositions, documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials cited do not establish the presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the opposing party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1) (quotation marks omitted). The Court may consider other materials in the record not cited to by the parties, but it is not required to do so. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001); accord Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010).

         In judging the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court does not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984 (quotation marks and citation omitted), and it must draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether a genuine issue of material fact precludes entry of judgment, Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d at 942 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Summary of Plaintiff's Complaint

         In 2007, Plaintiff developed cystic acne. Plaintiff did not see a dermatologist for two years which caused his skin disease to degenerate so severely that he now suffers from the shingles virus. Plaintiff was also never provided pain medication for his chronic pain. Prison officials advised Plaintiff that his shingles was directly related to his skin disease, and a sign of stress from his pain rashes, swelling, keloids, open sores and sleep deprivation.

         On April 13, 2017, Plaintiff met with Dr. Nguyen who advised him that he reviewed all of inmate appeals and medical records, and Plaintiff expressed having chronic pain symptoms and that he had been waiting two years to see a dermatologist. Plaintiff described that he had abscesses all of his body which lead to chronic pain. Plaintiff requested pain medication, other than Ibuprofen, which was denied.

         Plaintiff also requested to be placed back on Doxycycline which helped alleviate the cystic acne, but the request was denied by Dr. Nguyen. Dr. Nguyen also denied Plaintiff's request for a special diet because the milk and fluids in his body would turn into point and exit his pores.

         B. Statement of Undisputed Facts

          1. Plaintiff Hoskins is an inmate with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), currently housed at Kern Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 22 at 1.)

         2. Plaintiff Hoskins who has no formal medical training, believes that a higher dosage of doxycycline to treat cystic acne was indicated. (Pl. Dep. at 53:16-17; 54:6-55:25, attached to Hernandez Decl. Ex. A.)

         3. Plaintiff Hoskins suffers from cystic acne and shingles, both which cannot be cured, but are managed conditions. Plaintiff Hoskins developed cystic acne around 2007 or 2008. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 7; Pl. Dep. at 10:5-7, 10:23-11:2.)

         4. Prior to arriving at California Correctional Institution-Tehachapi (CCI), Plaintiff developed keloids on his face. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 6.)

         5. Plaintiff's sole cause of action for deliberate indifference arises from care provided by Dr. Nguyen, and supervision of Dr. Baniga, while Plaintiff was housed at CCI only. (Pl. Dep. at 9:10-10:4.)

         6. Plaintiff was housed at CCI from February 24, 2017 through the date of filing the amended complaint on October 10, 2017. (ECF 10 at 2; Nguyen Decl. ¶ 6.)

         7. Plaintiff named Dr. Baniga as a Defendant as Dr. Baniga supervised Dr. Nguyen. (Pl. Dep. at 44:25-45, 46:2.)

         8. Dr. Baniga did not meet, examine or provide treatment to Plaintiff. (Baniga Decl. ¶ 4; Pl. Dep. at 44:25-45:12.)

         9. On May 1, 2017, Dr. Baniga reviewed a Health Care Appeal filed by Plaintiff on April 4, 2017. (Baniga Decl. ¶ 5.)

         10. Upon his review of the treatment provided by Dr. Nguyen, Dr. Baniga did not have any criticism of the treatment rendered or treatment plan set out by Dr. Nguyen. (Baniga Decl. ¶ 5.)

         11. Plaintiff arrived at CCI on February 23, 2017. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 6.)

         12. Prior to Plaintiff's first medical appointment with Dr. Nguyen, Dr. Nguyen reviewed medical records and medical appeals to familiarize and understand his new patient's medical history. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 6.)

         13. Dr. Nguyen determined Plaintiff had been diagnosed with cystic acne, which some had developed to keloids, prior to arrival at CCI. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 6.)

         14. Plaintiff had been prescribed Doxycycline, Amoxicillin, Bactrim, topicals Clindamycin and Chlorhexidine, for acne, all to various effectiveness, within the previous 6 months of his arrival at CCI. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 6.)

         15. Plaintiff had also been referred to a dermatology examination which had not yet taken place. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 6.)

         16. Plaintiff had also been diagnosed with shingles, treated with Acyclovir and Calamine topical. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 6.)

         17. Plaintiff suffers from cystic acne, an incurable skin condition. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. A.)

         18. Plaintiff reported to Dr. Nguyen that he had suffered from cystic acne since about 2007. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. A.)

         19. Acne is a disorder that affects the skin's oil glands and hair follicles. It is one of the most common dermatological conditions. The small holes in the skin (pores) connect to oil glands under the skin. These ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.