Free Order on Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Phoenix Police Department, et. al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. Background vs. Robert Krumlauf, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 04-0720-PHX-ROS (LOA) ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

TCK

Plaintiff Robert Krumlauf filed this civil rights action claiming that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Pending before the Court is Defendant Meelhuysen's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.#39). Plaintiff responded (Doc. #44) and Defendant replied (Doc. #48). The Court will grant Defendant's motion. II. Procedural History Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #13), alleging that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference towards his serious medical needs. The relevant facts pertaining to Defendant Meelhuysen are as follows: Plaintiff alleges that during the course of his arrest, he suffered a serious injury to his leg. Plaintiff alleges that he advised arresting Phoenix Police Officer Meelhuysen that he suffered a serious leg injury immediately prior to the arrest and as a result, he could not stand, walk or bear weight on his leg. Plaintiff alleges that he advised Defendant Meelhuysen repeatedly that he was in excruciating pain and he showed Defendant that his leg was swollen and discolored. Despite knowing of
Document 63 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 1 of 10

Case 2:04-cv-00720-ROS-LOA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff's serious medical condition, Plaintiff contends that Defendant forced him to repeatedly walk unassisted on his leg, despite Plaintiff's pleas that he was unable to do so. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Meelhuysen continued to ignore him and rather than taking him directly to the hospital following his arrest, he took him to the jail and laughed about Plaintiff's complaints about his leg. (Second Amend. Compl. at 4). Defendant Meelhuysen is only named in Count I of this action. Defendant moved for summary judgment (Doc. #39). In support of the motion, Defendant filed a Statement of Facts (Doc. # 40); Defendant Meelhuysen's affidavit (Exhibit A), Affidavit of David Kraig, Emergency Medical Technician (Exhibit B); and Plaintiff's medical records (Exhibit C). Plaintiff responded (Doc. #44 ), arguing that disputed material facts prevent summary judgment. Plaintiff attached a Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Doc. #47), Statement of Facts (Doc. #45); Phoenix Police Department Report (Exhibit A); Plaintiff's Arrest/Booking Record (Exhibit B); Phoenix Police Department EMS Incident Report (Exhibit C). Defendant filed a reply (Doc. #48). III. Summary Judgment Standard A court must grant summary judgment if the pleadings and supporting documents, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). When considering a summary judgment motion, the evidence of the non-movant is "to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). These inferences are limited, however, "to those upon which a reasonable jury might return a verdict." Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D. Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1220 (9th Cir. 1995). Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment against a party who, after adequate time for discovery, fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of -2-

Case 2:04-cv-00720-ROS-LOA

Document 63

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 2 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

an element essential to that party's case, and on which the party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. In such a situation, there can be no genuine issue of material fact, since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of a nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. Id. IV. Deliberate Indifference To Medical Needs A. Applicable Law "Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard." Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). To prevail on a § 1983 medical claim under the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with "deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The plaintiff must demonstrate that a specific defendant, despite his knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff, failed to take reasonable measures to abate the harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). The alleged constitutional deprivation must be, "objectively, `sufficiently serious,'" in that the official's "act or omission must result in the denial of `the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.'" Id. at 834 (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991) and Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)). Further, the prison official must have a "sufficiently culpable state of mind," such that he acts with "deliberate indifference" to inmate health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 834 (quoting Wilson, 501 U.S. at 302-303). The Supreme Court has established a subjective test for the deliberate indifference inquiry "the official must both be aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference." Id. at 837. A plaintiff "need not show that a prison official acted or failed to act believing that harm would actually befall an inmate; it is enough that the official acted or failed to act despite his knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm." Id. at 842. Whether the prison official knew of a substantial risk of harm to the inmate is a question of fact. Id. at 842; see also Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 1995).

Case 2:04-cv-00720-ROS-LOA

Document 63

-3-

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 3 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Deliberate indifference may occur if "prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment." Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988). The indifference must be substantial, and the conduct must rise to a level of "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. Moreover, "state prison authorities have wide discretion regarding the nature and extent of medical treatment." Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986). "A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a section 1983 claim." Franklin v. State of Or. State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). Additionally, a mere delay in medical care, without more, is insufficient to state a claim against prison officials for deliberate indifference. Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). A plaintiff must show that the delay or denial of treatment was harmful. Id. B. Evidence Presented Defendant presented evidence that on October 24, 2003, Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle that was driven recklessly (Def. Ex. A, Meelhuysen affidavit at 4). Following a short pursuit by police, Plaintiff bailed out of the vehicle and fled on foot (Id. at 5). A homeowner at 3151 West Ruth Avenue approached Defendant Meelhuysen and requested assistance with a man lying in his backyard (Exhibit A at 6). The homeowner stated that Plaintiff jumped over and damaged his fence (Ex. A at 12). Defendant Meelhuysen ordered Plaintiff from underneath the bush and placed Plaintiff in handcuffs (Id. at 2, 9). At that time, Plaintiff complained that he had injured his ankle when he jumped over a fence during the pursuit by police (Def. Exhibit A at 10). Plaintiff indicated that he could not stand up or move (Id.). The Phoenix Fire Department was dispatched at police request. (Def. Exhibit B, Kraig affidavit at 4). When Phoenix Fire Department paramedics arrived, they found Plaintiff lying on the ground (Id. at 5). Plaintiff complained of pain and tenderness to his left ankle, claiming it was the result of him tripping as he ran through the backyard (Def. Exhibit B at 1). Paramedics observed minor swelling to Plaintiff's left ankle. Id. Paramedics also
Document 63

Case 2:04-cv-00720-ROS-LOA

-4-

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 4 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

observed that Plaintiff was able to move his left toes, his left ankle and he was able to walk. Id. Paramedics determined that Plaintiff's injury was not serious, he was stable, and he did not require hospitalization. Thereafter, Defendant transported Plaintiff to Madison Street Jail and completed booking paperwork for Plaintiff for the crimes of forgery and criminal damage. (Def. Ex. A at 21). This concluded Defendant Muelhuysen's involvement with Plaintiff. On October 28, 2003, Plaintiff was examined at Maricopa County Medical Center and diagnosed with a distal fibular fracture to his leg (Def. Exhibit C). Plaintiff presented evidence that during the course of his arrest on October 24, 2003, he suffered a broken leg (Plf. SOF at 2). Plaintiff alleges that following his arrest, he immediately apprized Defendant that he experienced excruciating pain in his leg and Defendant ignored his complaints (Plf. SOF at 2). Plaintiff contends that Defendant falsified the police report by stating in the report that Plaintiff had no observed injury at the time of his arrest (Plf. SOF at 2, Plf. Exhibit A). Plaintiff alleges that the Phoenix Fire Department records reflect that he was given ice for swelling, discoloration and pain and was told that he needs an X-Ray (Plf SOF at 2, Exhibit C). Plaintiff claims that when he was taken to the jail, he continued to complain that he suffered excruciating pain to his leg and Defendant ignored his Complaints (Plf. SOF at 2). Plaintiff contends that Defendant attempted to minimize Plaintiff's injury by making jokes about it. (Plf. SOF at 2). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant falsified the police report by stating that at the time of Plaintiff's arrest he did not observe any injuries to Plaintiff (Plf. SOF at 2). Plaintiff further contends that Defendant falsified Plaintiff's booking sheet by stating that "there are no complaints from this Plaintiff or evidence of any injury" (Plf. SO at 3, Exhibit B). Plaintiff claims that he was forced to stand and hop around at the jail without medical treatment for four days as a result of the Defendant's false reporting (Plf. SOF at 3). On October 28, 2003, Plaintiff received X-Rays at Maricopa County Medical Center and he was diagnosed with an acute undisplaced fracture of the lateral malleolus. (Plf. Exhibit D). C. Discussion

Case 2:04-cv-00720-ROS-LOA

Document 63

-5-

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 5 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that he was not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's medical needs. Defendant also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiff contends that the undisputed facts demonstrate that Defendant acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. "A party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Harper v. Wallingford, 877 F.2d 728, 731 (9th Cir. 1989). The opposing party may not rest on conclusory allegations or mere assertions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Plaintiff submitted the Phoenix Fire Department EMS Incident Report (Plf. Ex. C) as evidence that he sustained a serious injury to his leg at the time of his arrest. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, this report does not reflect that Plaintiff should receive X-Rays nor does it state that Plaintiff had discoloration and pain in his ankle. The report reflects only that Plaintiff's left ankle was swollen and that paramedics administered ice to Plaintiff for treatment (Plaintiff Exhibit C). Plaintiff also claims that Defendant verbally minimized and made jokes regarding his injury. Plaintiff has provided no evidence to support this claim. Moreover, in his deposition Plaintiff states that he had no recollection of what comments Defendant made to him other than he made light of the situation (Def. Ex. A, Plf. Depo. at 35-36, 66-67). Regardless, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the materiality of any such conduct to the applicable legal standard of deliberate indifference. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant altered the police record and Plaintiff's booking record by stating that in these documents that Plaintiff had "no observed injury" and as a result, he was not treated in a timely manner at the jail. Plaintiff provided copies of these documents, but again failed to demonstrate how these allegations are material to this case. Regardless, once Plaintiff arrived at the jail, Plaintiff was able to communicate to the jail staff that he had been injured and if in fact Plaintiff had additional swelling and pain, he was able to show jail staff evidence of this fact and request additional treatment. Defendant had no further contact with Plaintiff after he was booked in to the Maricopa County Jail.
Document 63

Case 2:04-cv-00720-ROS-LOA

-6-

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 6 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff does not deny that police called paramedics on his behalf nor does he deny that he was permitted to lie down while awaiting paramedics. In fact, he admits this fact in his deposition (Exhibit A, Plaintiff deposition at 56-57). Further, Plaintiff does not allege that the Defendant interfered with the paramedics evaluation of Plaintiff nor does he allege that paramedics did not administer proper treatment to him. Plaintiff's conclusory assertions that Defendant acted with deliberate indifference without supporting evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that there is a genuine issue for trial. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that Defendant acted in a timely and reasonable manner by calling paramedics within 10 minutes of Plaintiff's arrest (Affidavit of Kraig, Def. Ex. B at 1). Paramedics evaluated Plaintiff and determined that Plaintiff sustained minor swelling to his left ankle. Id. at 2. Paramedics also observed that Plaintiff was able to move his toes and left ankle and that he was able to walk. Id. Finally, the evidence establishes that paramedics determined that Plaintiff's injury was not serious, Plaintiff was stable and he did not required hospitalization. Id. Defendant reasonably relied upon the paramedics assessment of Plaintiff's condition that Plaintiff's injuries were not serious and that he did not require hospitalization. Defendant then transported Plaintiff in a timely manner to the Maricopa County Jail after the paramedics established that he had not suffered a serious injury. After Plaintiff was transported to the jail, Defendant was no longer responsible for Plaintiff or his medical treatment. In the medical context, deliberate indifference may be shown by (1) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner's pain or possible medical need and (2) harm caused by the indifference. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). Plaintiff has filed to establish either of these elements. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

D. Qualified Immunity

Case 2:04-cv-00720-ROS-LOA

Document 63

-7-

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 7 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Finally, Defendant asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is "an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation." Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). The initial inquiry for a court deciding the qualified immunity issue is whether the facts alleged, taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, show the prison official's conduct violated a constitutional right. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). If the facts show such a violation, the next inquiry is whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Id. "The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted." Id. at 202. Having determined that Defendant's conduct was objectively reasonable and that Defendant's conduct did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. V. Pending Motion Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion To Amend (Doc. # 57). Plaintiff has attached a Third Amended Complaint to his motion. Defendant has filed a response (Doc. #60). Plaintiff has filed a reply (Doc. #62). In his motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Third Amended Complaint on the ground that at the time he filed his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff did not know the names of the Phoenix Fire Department personnel who responded to the scene of his October 24, 2003 arrest. In response, Defendants assert that in addition to adding names of Phoenix Fire Department Personnel, Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint also seeks to add Defendants City of Phoenix and City of Phoenix Board of Supervisors as Defendants. Plaintiff also seeks to add an Eight Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim against Defendant Meelhuysen. After defendants have filed an answer, "a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court; . . . and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P.
Document 63

Case 2:04-cv-00720-ROS-LOA

-8-

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 8 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

15(a). A motion to amend may be denied "if permitting an amendment would prejudice the opposing party, produce an undue delay in the litigation, or result in futility for lack of merit." Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). Denial of a motion to amend is proper when an amendment would be futile or subject to dismissal. Saul v. US, 928 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991). Here, Plaintiff seeks to amend his Second Amended Complaint on the grounds that he did not know the names of the Phoenix Fire Department Personnel at the time of the filing of his Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has provided no reason for the delay in attempting to add these defendants. Moreover, in Arizona there is a two year statute of limitations for §1983 claims. Marks v. Parra, 785 F. 2d 1419, 1420 (9th Cir. 1986); MaddenTyler v. Maricopa County, 189 Ariz. 462, 266, 943 P. 2d 822, 826 (App. 1977). Plaintiff seeks to amend claims related to an injury which he sustained on October 24, 2003, which is beyond the statute of limitations period. Finally, the Court has received a Notice of Settlement as to the remaining Defendants in this action: Maricopa County Board of Supervisors; R. Mendoza; J. Holmes; Nelson; Maricopa County Correctional Health Services; and Joseph Arpaio (Doc. #61). To permit amendment at this stage of the litigation would both prejudice the opposing party and produce an undue delay in litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion To Amend (Doc. #57) will be denied. IT IS ORDERED: (1) That the Clerk of the Court is directed to withdraw the reference only as to Plaintiff's Motion To Amend (Doc. #57); (2) That Plaintiff's Motion To Amend (Doc. #57) is DENIED; (3) That Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #39) is GRANTED and Defendant Meelhuysen is dismissed from this action.

Case 2:04-cv-00720-ROS-LOA

Document 63

-9-

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 9 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:04-cv-00720-ROS-LOA Document 63

DATED this 4th day of October, 2006.

- 10 -

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 10 of 10