Opinion
No. 2:19-cv-1446-WBS-CKD P
03-15-2021
DOMINIQUE MERRIMAN, Plaintiff, v. J. PONDER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On February 1, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (See Docket No. 28.) Defendants have filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (See Docket No. 29.)
Defendants argue that plaintiff has not adequately stated a claim for deliberate indifference to medical needs and has only demonstrated a difference in opinion as to treatment between the plaintiff and his providers. (See id. at 2-3.) However, plaintiff does not base his complaint solely on the fact that he was not placed on suicide watch. (See Docket No. 9 at 5.) Rather, he alleges that that he suffered from a mental health condition and sought to harm himself, that the defendants knew about his condition, and that they took no action, up to and including placing the plaintiff on suicide watch. Taking plaintiff's allegations in the light most favorable to him, plaintiff adequately alleges that he suffered injury as a result of defendants' deliberate indifference.
Defendants also argue that they should be granted dismissal based on qualified immunity and that the magistrate judge examined qualified immunity at an extremely high level of generality. (See Docket No. 29 at 3.) To show deliberate indifference to medical needs, the plaintiff must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and that the defendants chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff's health. See Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014.)
Defendants are correct that plaintiff has not identified a case in which mental health providers who evaluate an inmate's complaints of being suicidal, and determine that he is not, have been found liable for violating the Eighth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court has long held, and recently reaffirmed, that "a general constitutional rule already identified in the decisional law may apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question" even if the specific action in question has not previously been held unlawful. See Taylor v. Riojas, 141 S. Ct. 52, 54 (2020); Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 740-41 (2002). It is clearly established that denial of medical care can violate the Eighth Amendment and that a violation occurs when a prison official causes injury as a result of at his deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). It goes without saying that suicidal ideations can result in serious harm.
Taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, plaintiff alleges that he suffered a sufficiently serious injury as a result of defendants' deliberate indifference to his condition. (See generally Docket No. 9.) The court therefore agrees with the magistrate judge that dismissal of defendants on the basis of qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss at this stage of this case is not appropriate.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed February 1, 2021 are adopted in full;
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 24) is denied; and
3. Defendants shall file their answer within 14 days. Dated: March 15, 2021
/s/ _________
WILLIAM B. SHUBB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE