Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case BC702622 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Zachary Eugene Williams (“Williams”) brings this action against Defendant County of Los Angeles (“County”) for violation of civil rights, medical malpractice, professional negligence, and sexual assault. While incarcerated, Plaintiff alleges Defendant County denied him medical treatment to treat an infection. Plaintiff further alleges Defendants violated his civil rights by, among other things, taking blood without consent, and failing to offer specialized housing despite being mobility impaired. Plaintiff seeks $21,000,000.00 in damages.

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843. In analyzing motions for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent's claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.” Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294. Thus, summary judgment is granted when, after the Court’s consideration of the evidence set forth in the papers and all reasonable inferences accordingly, no triable issues of fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c); Villa v. McFarren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733, 741.

As to each claim as framed by the Complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520. Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.¿(2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389. A defendant has met its burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if it demonstrates the absence of any single essential element of plaintiff’s case or a complete defense to plaintiff’s action. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(o)(2); Bacon v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 854, 858. Once the defendant moving party has met the burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show via specific facts that a triable issue of material facts exists as to a cause of action or a defense thereto. § 437c(o)(2).

First, the court must “identify the issues framed by the pleadings.” (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.) During March and April of 2016, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Men’s Central Jail serving a sentence for voluntary manslaughter. Also during this period, he had apparently suffered from injuries to the genital region.

Plaintiff alleges that on March 7 and 24, 2016, Defendant failed to allow him a follow-up visit to LAC-USC Medical center, despite pain, swelling, and a worsening condition. (Id. at 13.) On April 8, 2016, Plaintiff had an operation at LAC-USC Medical Center to treat an abscess in his right testicle. (Id. at 14, 24.) He again had no follow up appointment until he made a complaint on April 25, 2016. (Id.)

Plaintiff also alleges Defendant violated his civil rights and committed negligence by placing him in a holding cell, despite requests by Plaintiff and his doctor that he be housed in the “old man’s dorm.” (SAC p. 8.) Plaintiff alleges he slept in the top bunk for three days without a mattress. (Id.) Plaintiff’s mobility issues made it difficult for him to navigate down from the top bunk. As a result, he could not make it to the showers and had to take “bird baths” in the cell. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff alleges the cell contained rodents and he could not obtain his pain medications there. (Id.)

On April 10, 2016, Plaintiff alleges a male nurse “came to clean and put antibiotic ointment on [the] infected area.” (Id. at 25.) Plaintiff alleges the nurse “began to rub [Plaintiff’s] penis until it became fully erect.” (Id.) Plaintiff says he “felt this was not right,” that he “felt violated,” and that this caused him “emotional distress.” (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges the medical staff “did not discuss with [Plaintiff] the theory or reason for this testicular infection.” (Id. 26.) Plaintiff also alleges the medical facility took his blood before and after surgery without his knowledge or consent. (Id.)

Thus, although not entirely clear, it appears the SAC asserts causes of action for violation of civil rights, medical malpractice, professional negligence, and sexual assault. (See Ameron Internat. Corp. v. Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1370, 1386 [noting “our policy of emphasizing substance over form in characterizing pleadings”].)

Plaintiff has not opposed the motion for summary judgment. Even where “no opposition is presented, the moving party still has the burden of eliminating all triable issues of fact.” (Wright v. Stang Mfg. Co. (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 1218, 1228.) The burden begins with Defendant to show that “one or more elements of a cause of action . . . cannot be established.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 853.

Defendant presents evidence that Plaintiff suffered a gunshot wound on or about September 11, 2007. (SSUMF 45.) The gunshot wound went through his left buttock, through his perineum (the area between the anus and scrotum), through his right inferior pubic rami (a bone structure that makes up part of the pelvis) and through his right medial-anterior thigh. (SSUMF 46.) This caused injuries to the genital area, among other things. (Id.) Plaintiff underwent a urethroplasty surgery to treat his injuries. (SSUMF 48.)

Fast forward to the relevant period in 2016, and Plaintiff was then serving a prison sentence at the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Men’s Central. (SSUMF 2, 3.) During his incarceration, Plaintiff apparently began having medical issues in the genital region.

On March 4, 2016, doctors at LAC USC diagnosed Plaintiff with right testicle epididymitis; bilateral varicoceles (enlargement of the veins within the loose bag of skin that holds the testicles); a small right hydrocele (a type of swelling in the scrotum that occurs when

fluid collects in the thin sheath surrounding the testicle); and bilateral microlithiasis (a condition in which small clusters of calcium form in the testicles). (SSUMF 15.) Defendant presents evidence that the 2007 gunshot wound contributed to his epididymitis in 2016. (SSUMF 49.) Epididymitis is a progressive disease if not treated with antibiotics. (SSUMF 16.) This is especially true for diabetics such as Plaintiff. (Id.) Defendant presents evidence that Plaintiff was described and received antibiotics, but that Plaintiff failed to consistently take them. (SSUMF 17, 18, 20, 23, 24.) This likely exacerbated Plaintiff’s infection. (SSUMF 19, 25.)

Defendant presents evidence that Plaintiff never asked to see a LAC USC urologist after his March 4, 2016 epididymitis diagnosis. (SSUMF 26.) Plaintiff did, however, make a general request to see a doctor on March 24, 2016, and was therefore scheduled to see a general practitioner at MCJ. (SSUMF 27.) Plaintiff visited the MCJ Clinic on March 25, and 31, and April 5, 2016. (SSUMF 29, 30.) The medical records do not reflect that Plaintiff was in pain or needed urgent medical care. (Id.) Defendant presents evidence that Plaintiff admits he was never denied his right to visit the medical clinic at MCJ. (SSUMF 6.)

On April 8, 2016, Plaintiff underwent surgery at LAC USC for the removal of his left testicle. (SSUMF 31.) Plaintiff presents opinion from a medical doctor that based on the severity of Plaintiff’s condition at the time of the surgery, it would have been too late to treat Plaintiff’s condition even at the time of the March 4, 2016, diagnosis due to an “abnormal progression” of the infection. (SSUMF 32.)

From April 11, 2016, through May 1, 2016, Plaintiff received post-surgical care from the County. (SSUMF 35.) He had follow-up appointments scheduled with a urologist to remove his stitches on April 15 and 21, 2016. (SSUMF 16.) However, it appears this information was never forwarded from LAC USC to a coordinator at MCJ. (SSUMF 38.) Defendant presents evidence that it is not the role of MCJ to schedule inmate appointments at LAC USC. (SSUMF 8.) Rather, that task is handled by schedulers at LAC USC, who schedule follow-up appointments based on discharge instructions and relay that information to MCJ. (SSUMF 9, 11.) Once an appointment is scheduled at LAC USC, MCJ “Facilitators” or “Coordinators” ensure that that inmate patients attend the appointment. (SSUMF 7.) Facilitators/Coordinators issue the inmate-patient a pass to attend the appointment at LAC USC. (SSUMF 13.) An inmate patient with a pass is then transported by deputies from MCJ to LAC USC. (SSUMF 14.)

LAC USC apparently then scheduled Plaintiff for a different appointment on April 20, 2016. (SSUMF 37.) When the County Facilitator/Coordinator attempted to issue Plaintiff a pass to attend this appointment, she learned that Plaintiff was in court. (Id.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s appointment was rescheduled to May 2, 2016. Plaintiff had his sutures removed at the May 2, 2016, appointment. (Id.) Defendant presents evidence that the delay in removing Plaintiff’s sutures did not cause any injury. (SSUMF 39.) Plaintiff has apparently not sought treatment for his testicles since having the sutures removed. (SSUMF 40.)

Plaintiff alleges that a male nurse, who he believes to be homosexual, sexually assaulted him while applying antibiotic ointment to Plaintiff’s penis. Plaintiff has produced no documents showing he made any complaints of the alleged sexual assault. (SSUMF 41, 42.) Plaintiff did not speak to anyone about the accident and did not file a Complaint. (SSUMF 43.)

While housed in the Unit 2400 cell from March 5 through March 22, 2016, Plaintiff alleges that in spite of his injuries he was assigned to the upper bunk without a mattress, and his limited mobility confined him to “bird baths” within the cell. He also contends he was denied his pain medication. Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff went without a mattress for a period, but presents evidence that Plaintiff was never assigned to the top bunk, and that Plaintiff did not produce any documents showing he was injured from having no mattress or taking “bird baths.” (SSUMF 62.) Defendant also presents evidence that Plaintiff received all ten doses of his prescribed pain medication while housed in Unit 2400, and did not complain at his medical appointments that he had not received the same. (SSUMF 65, 66, 67, 68.)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s allegation that he was denied transfer to the Old Man’s dorm, his MCJ records do not indicate that he requested a transfer. (SSUMF 53.) Plaintiff admitted he made no such requests or Complaints. (SSUMF 54, 55, 56.) Nonetheless, on March 22, 2016, Plaintiff was transferred to the “Old Man’s Dorm” where he was assigned a bottom bunk. (SSUMF 63.)

Considering the above, Defendant has advanced evidence to negate each of Plaintiff’s claims for medical malpractice, negligence, violations of his civil rights, and sexual assault. Put differently, Defendant’s evidence establishes that Plaintiff cannot produce evidence to support the essential elements of his claims. Plaintiff, in turn, has failed to carry his burden to show via specific facts that a triable issue of material facts exists as to any cause of action. (§ 437c(o)(2); Kobayashi v. Superior Ct. (2009) 175 Cal. App. 4th 536, 543 [“Pro. per. litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys.”].)

Judge of the Superior Court

FN 1 - Defendant filed a Proof of Service reflecting service on Plaintiff by mail at Health Right 360, 2307 W. 6th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90057. (See 01/20/23 Proof of Service.) This followed Defendant’s unsuccessful attempt to serve Plaintiff at Solano State Prison. (See Declaration of Tasha T. Salveron, 12/28/2022.)