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.

Jones v. Carraby

United States District Court, S.D. California

December 30, 2019

WILLIAM JOSEPH JONES, Plaintiff,
v.
CARRABY et al., Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT DR. FOYLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [DOC. NO. 28.]

          Hon. William V. Gallo, United States Magistrate Judge.

         After the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendant Michael Foyle, O.D., Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint with leave of Court. Foyle now moves to dismiss the FAC. For the reasons that follow, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant's motion be DENIED.

         I. Background

         A. Factual Background

         Plaintiff William Joseph Jones is an inmate who was once housed at Centinela State Prison in Imperial, California. Defendant Foyle is employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations (“CDCR”). This case arises from an alleged “botched” surgery on Plaintiff's right eye by private surgeons and the follow-up care he received in part from Centinela prison optometrist, Dr. Michael Foyle.

         On March 3, 2017, Plaintiff underwent cataract surgery on his right eye by Dr. Carraby of California Retina Associates (“CRA”), a private health care provider contracted by the CDCR.[1] In the original Complaint, Plaintiff claimed a medical instrument detached his retina during the surgery and caused severe visual impairment in his right eye. In the FAC, he claims he was not provided sufficient anesthesia and eye drops, which resulted in irreversible damage.

         Dissatisfied with the outcome of the surgery, Plaintiff filed a CDCR Form 602 Healthcare Appeal on April 16, 2017 asking to have his eyes reexamined. Defendant Foyle examined Plaintiff on April 20, 2017 for “refraction”[2] to determine whether to prescribe eyeglasses. Defendant Foyle chose not to prescribe any eyeglasses at that time.

         Approximately two weeks after the appeal was submitted, Plaintiff was again sent off-site to CRA for post-surgical eye care. Plaintiff was transported to CRA for follow-up care on May 19, 2017, June 6, 2017, June 19, 2017, July 17, 2017, July 29, 2017, August 21, 2017, and September 8, 2017.

         Plaintiff was again examined for eyeglasses by Dr. Foyle on September 20, 2017. Dr. Foyle was still unable to correct Plaintiff's vision in his right eye with glasses and referred him back to the specialists at CRA for further evaluation of his retina. Plaintiff was transported to CRA the same day, where Dr. Delengocky performed additional tests and agreed with Dr. Foyle's assessment that plaintiff's right eye vision could not be corrected with glasses.

         After four additional visits to specialists at CRA, Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Foyle on December 6, 2017. Dr. Foyle checked Plaintiff's vision and again noted that glasses would not correct vision in his right eye. At a visit one-week later, Dr. Foyle suggested that plaintiff speak with Dr. Mani of CRA about surgical options for his retina.

         After Plaintiff was transferred to another prison, he obtained a prescription for glasses from California Correctional Institution optometrist Dr. Young. Plaintiff alleges Dr. Foyle should have prescribed him glasses a year before Dr. Young did and that this one-year delay caused “significant further” irreversible damage to both of his eyes-not just his right eye. Plaintiff accordingly alleges violations of the Eighth Amendment based Defendant Dr. Foyle's deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.

         B. Procedural Background

         Plaintiff filed the initial complaint on July 16, 2018, alleging Defendant Foyle and others violated his Eight Amendment rights. The Court granted Defendant Foyle's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. (Doc. No. 25.) Plaintiff thereafter filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 27), which Defendant Foyle now moves to dismiss (Doc. No. 28). Plaintiff has filed an opposition (Doc. No. 30), and Defendant has filed a reply (Doc. No. 31).

         II. ...


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.