United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 47]
Rogelio May Ruiz is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary
judgment, filed September 4, 2019.
action is proceeding against Defendants L. Arakaki and F.
Hanna for deliberate indifference to a serious dental need in
violation of the Eighth Amendment.
November 1, 2018, Defendants filed an answer to the
previously stated, on September 4, 2019, Defendants filed the
instant motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed an
opposition on November 22, 2019, and Defendants filed a reply
on December 2, 2019. Accordingly, Defendants' motion is
deemed submitted for review without oral argument. Local Rule
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
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).
Summary of Plaintiff's Complaint
went to his dental appointment with Dr. Arakaki for a root
canal. According to Plaintiff, in July 2017, Dr. Arakaki was
going to kill the nerves in some of Plaintiff's teeth to
save them from extraction. However, Dr. Arakaki did not
complete the treatment for Plaintiff's teeth because he
requested that Plaintiff sign a form consenting to extraction
because they were worn down. Plaintiff refused to sign the
consent form and was therefore not provided any further
dental treatment. Dr. Arakaki advised Plaintiff that
supervising Dr. Hanna did not want to continue
Plaintiff's treatment. Plaintiff was left with a
temporary root canal but the treatment was never completed.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
early 2017, Plaintiff's tooth #27 and #28 had severe
attrition, apical abscess (inflammation of the tooth's
root), and occlusal bruxism (damage from grinding teeth) with
severe occlusal wearing. (Declaration of L. Arakaki
(“Arakaki Decl.”) ¶ 5, Ex. A; ECF No. 47-4;