United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court
is defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 68),
which the undersigned concludes should be granted.
action proceeds on plaintiff's original verified
complaint. Plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1)
E. Lynch, a prison nurse; (2) M. Linggi, also a prison nurse;
and (3) “John Doe, ” the prison health care
defendant Lynch, plaintiff alleges:
On 4-7-15 at evening medical call Defendant E. Lynch came to
my door. I precisely told Miss E. Lynch I was feeling out of
control and that I didn't have my I.D. Nurse E. Lynch
said (so what do I have to varify [sic] who you are). Inmate
patient told Miss. Lynch that she has to give me my mental
health medication because I hear (voices and suffer from
paranoia, depression, mood swings, and sleep deprivation). .
* * *
. . .I gave defendant E. Lynch my CDCR number yet she still
refused to give me my medication. E. Lynch told me she would
be back but she never did come back. Due to her reckless
disregard and deliberate indifference to my serious medical
need that night I became extremely paranoid and my mood
became so violent I attacked my cellie . . . who had to
physically restrain me. Which during this time I (BLACK
OUT) and due to that restraint I could've had a
severe manic attack and died. The following morning 4-8-15
when I came to E. Lynch refused me my medication again. All
together [sic] I didn't receive my medication for a
period of 34 hours. . . Defendant will claim she didn't
know who I was but plaintiff asserts she knew who I was for
she gave me my medication many time's [sic] before. . . .
Defendant E. Lynch was made aware of the situation and she
failed to respond properly. . . .
ECF No. 1, pgs. 4-5 (underlining in original).
relief, plaintiff seeks a court order requiring defendant
Lynch to “work's [sic] on a different yard.”
Id. at 4. Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages.
allegations regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies
are somewhat contradictory. On this court's form
complaint, plaintiff alleges a grievance process was
available to him, he filed a grievance concerning the facts
alleged, and the grievance process had been completed.
See ECF No. 1, pg. 3. Plaintiff also provides the
following narrative description of his efforts to exhaust
. . .After I filed another 602 [inmate appeal] health care
appeal's [sic] and I sent a letter out requesting about
both 602's on 8-30-15 stating they never got another 602
and the original was sent back on 6-17-15. There is no appeal
remedie [sic] available. . . .
Id. at 5.
THE PARTIES' EVIDENCE
Lynch's motion for summary judgment is supported by her
separate statement of undisputed facts, see ECF No.
68-3, as well as the following declarations and attached
exhibits: defendant's counsel, D. Lee, see ECF
No. 68-4; defendant E. Lynch, see ECF No. 68-5;
Chief Medical Officer at Kern Valley State Prison, S. Lopez,
see ECF No. 68-6; Chief of the Health Care
Correspondence and Appeals Branch, S. Gates, see ECF
No. 68-7. Defendant Lynch has also lodged with the court the
transcript of plaintiff's deposition taken on February
26, 2019. See ECF No. 69 (notice of lodging
to defendant, the following facts related to plaintiff's
claim that defendant Lynch is liable for failing to dispense
medication are undisputed:
1. Plaintiff's claim is limited to the failure to
dispense medication on April 7, 2015 (Complaint, pg. 5).
2. At all times relevant to the complaint, plaintiff was an
inmate housed at California State Prison, Sacramento
(CSP-Sac), and received medications to manage impulsivity and
assist with a sleeping problem (Complaint, pg. 1; Lee
Declaration, Exhibit A; plaintiff's deposition,
3. At all times relevant to the complaint, defendant Lynch
was a “floater” licensed vocational nurse at
CSP-Sac, moving from facility to facility (Complaint, pg. 3;
Lynch Declaration, ¶ 1).
4. On April 7, 2015, defendant Lynch made her evening rounds
to dispense medication in plaintiff's facility
(Plaintiff's Deposition, 18:1; Lynch Declaration, ¶
5. Plaintiff did not have his identification to present to
defendant Lynch during the pill call (Plaintiff's
deposition, 22:15-17; Lynch Declaration, ¶ 5).
6. Institutional policy requires that an inmate's
identification be checked prior to dispensing medication
(Lynch Declaration, ¶ 3).
7. Plaintiff did not receive his medication on April 7, 2015,
as a result of his inability to produce identification (Lynch
Declaration, ¶ 5).
See ECF No. 68-3 (defendant's separate statement
of undisputed fact).
Lynch also contends the following facts relating to
exhaustion are undisputed:
1. Between April 7, 2015, and the date the complaint was
filed, plaintiff submitted two inmate grievances: (1) No.
SAC-SC-15001254; and (2) No. SAC-SC-15001510 (Gates
Declaration, ¶ 8).
2. Grievance No. SAC-SC-15001254, submitted on April 14,
2015, contained allegations against defendant Lynch related
to the pill call on April 7, 2015 (Gates Declaration, Exhibit
3. Grievance No. SAC-SC-15001254 was not adjudicated at the
third level of review (Gates Declaration, Exhibit B).
4. Grievance No. SAC-SC-15001510, submitted on December 20,
2015, relates to allegations that a non-party nurse was
disrespectful to plaintiff on December 18, 2015 (Gates
Declaration, Exhibit C).
5. Plaintiff did not process a relevant grievance concerning
defendant Lynch through the third level of review (Gates
Declaration, Exhibit C; plaintiff's deposition,
See ECF No. 68-3 (defendant's separate statement
of undisputed fact).
in support of her argument that plaintiff's request for
injunctive relief contained in the complaint is moot because
plaintiff has been transferred to a different prison,
defendant Lynch states it is undisputed that plaintiff is
currently housed at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) See
id. (citing plaintiff notice of change of address at ECF
to plaintiff's opposition brief are Exhibits A-E, as
Exhibit A The first page of plaintiff's Exhibit A
consists of a May 18, 2015, rejection of plaintiff's
inmate appeal, No. SAC-HC-15030879, by the California
Correctional Health Care Services. The grievance was
procedurally rejected for “excessive verbiage or
documentation.” Plaintiff was instructed to re-submit a
revised grievance within 30 days.
The remainder of Exhibit A consists of an inmate grievance
submitted on April 14, 2015, with a notation that it was
rejected at the first level on May 18, 2015.
Exhibit B The first two pages of Exhibit B consist of an
inmate grievance submitted on May 7, 2015. The next two pages
consist of a June 15, 2015, first-level response to this
grievance, which was assigned No. SAC-HC-15030924. The
grievance was partially granted and partially denied in that
the “medication violation” was “addressed,
” but prison officials did not grant plaintiff's
request that defendant Linggi be retrained.
The next two pages of Exhibit B consist of another copy of
the May 7, 2015, grievance. This copy indicates the grievance
was “accepted” by the institution and assigned on
June 25, 2015. The document also indicates the matter was
closed on June 17, 2015.
The next page of Exbibit B is an October 1, 2015, notice of
cancellation of plaintiff's grievance, No.
SAC-HC-15030924, as untimely.
The final two pages of Exhibit B consist of an inmate
grievance, apparently concerning the cancellation of the
prior grievance, submitted on September 16, 2015.
Exhibit C This exhibit consists of a one-page memorandum
determination of staff complaint/grievance, No.
SAC-SC-15001254. The memorandum concludes the grievance does
not qualify as a staff complaint.
Exhibit D Plaintiff provides a two-page document, entitled
“Statewide Psychotropic Medication Consent Form,
” dated March 26, 2015, in which plaintiff consents to
receiving various medications.
Exhibit E This document is a one-page form, entitled
“MAR Documentation, indicating defendant Lynch recorded
that plaintiff had refused medication on April 7, 2015,
“after requesting to see his I.D.” See
ECF No. 75, pgs. 17-41.
Also included with plaintiff's brief is the following:
“Ex Par Te [sic] Motion Letter: With Exhibits Attached
to Help Courts [sic] Decision with Defendants [sic] Motion
for Summary Judgment.” See ECF No. 75, pgs.
44-58. In his letter, plaintiff states:
To: Mr. Dennis M. Cota as this letter in ex par te form lands
in your chambers I'm respectfully requesting that you. .
.take judicial notice and that these exhibits are only to be
seen between plaintiff and the overseers of the arena of
civil law & or litigation! These documents will surely
let you see that these documents hold more weigh to what