Opinion
3:18-cv-00310-RCJ-CLB
02-01-2023
CHARLES MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. ROMEO ARANAS, et al. Defendants.
AARON D. FORD ATTORNEY GENERAL DOUGLAS R. RANDS, SENIOR DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF NEVADA ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS ROMEO ARANAS, ISIDRO BACA, SHELLY CONLIN, RICHARD LONG, DAVID MAR, MELISSA MITCHELL AND WILLIAM MILLER
AARON D. FORD ATTORNEY GENERAL DOUGLAS R. RANDS, SENIOR DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF NEVADA ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS ROMEO ARANAS, ISIDRO BACA, SHELLY CONLIN, RICHARD LONG, DAVID MAR, MELISSA MITCHELL AND WILLIAM MILLER
JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER
ROBERT C. JONES, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Following pretrial proceedings in this case,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. NATURE OF ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. NATURE OF ACTION
Plaintiff Charles Morris (Morris) is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) and currently incarcerated at Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC). Morris is proceeding on two claims: an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendants Aranas, Long, Mitchell, and Mar, and an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious threats to inmate's safety claim against Defendants Baca, Miller, and Conlin. ECF No. 43.
On June 21, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 65). Plaintiff opposed (ECF No. 82) and filed a cross motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 83). Defendants opposed Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 84. In an Order adopting and accepting the Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge, this Court denied Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 65) and denied Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 83).
Therefore, this matter is proceeding to trial
B. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff s Contentions
Morris alleges prison officials knew or should have known he had serious back problems and, repeatedly transferred him to prisons with flat yards and delayed medical treatment by refusing to provide MRIs, then delayed/denied surgery once an MRI confirmed the need for surgery. Instead of surgery, prison officials issued Morris a walker and cane. Morris's delay in treatment led to him filling injuring himself on the stairs, which led to the need for emergency surgery.
Morris alleges prison officials knew for ever 15 years that he was classified to a lower tier, lower bunk restriction, but in 2017, prison officials ordered Morris to a top tier and refused to move him to a lower tier until he fell down the stairs and partially paralyzed himself.
2. Defendants' Contentions
Defendants contend that the evidence does not support Plaintiffs allegations. Defendants incorporate any Affirmative Defenses from the Answer as it pertains to the Defendants. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs constitutional rights have been violated.
C. RELIEF SOUGHT
Plaintiff seeks declaratory, compensatory, and punitive damages. Injunctive relief, court cost, out of pocket expense, Attorney fees, Mental and emotional changes.
II. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This is a civil action commenced under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C S 1331.
III. UNCONTESTED FACTS ADMITTED BY THE PARTIES WHICH REQUIRE NO PROOF
1. Mr. Morris, in this matter has filed a Complaint alleging violations of his constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No.6).
2. At all times relevant in the Complaint, Plaintiff was in the lawful custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections ("NDOC") housed at Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC) (ECF No. 6 at 1).
3. Defendant Romeo Aranas was previously employed by the NDOC as a Medical Director.
4. Defendant David Mar was previously employed by the NDOC as a Senior Physician.
5. Defendant Melissa Mitchell is currently employed by the NDOC as a Correctional Nurse III.
6. Defendant Richard Long is currently a contract Physician with the NDOC.
7. Defendant Isidro Baca was previously employed by the NDOC as a Warden.
8. Defendant Shelly Conlin is currently employed by the NDOC as a Correctional Caseworker, III.
9. Defendant William Miller is currently employed by the NDOC as a Correctional Lieutenant.
10. Plaintiff suffered from back pain.
11. Plaintiff was given a lower bunk, 10wer level designation.
12. Plaintiff received medical consultations and evaluations.
13. Plaintiff received MRI and other evaluations.
14. Plaintiff was moved to a different cell due to contraband being found in his cell.
15. Plaintiff fell down the stairs.
16. Plaintiff had surgery, on an emergency basis after the fall.
17. Plaintiff kited for medical attention throughout the time frame of this matter.
18. Plaintiff filed grievances relating to his treatment.
IV. FACTS UNADMITTED THAT WILL NOT BE CONTESTED
The following facts, though not admitted, will not be contested at trial by evidence to the contrary: NONE
V. CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT TO BE TRIED AND DETERMINED UPON TRIAL
A. PLAINTIFF'S CONTESTED FACTS
See Complaint.
B. DEFENDANTS' CONTESTED FACTS
1. Whether Plaintiff has met his burden of producing evidence supporting the facts set forth above, i.e., whether he can prove that the individual defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights?
2. Whether any form of damages are available to Plaintiff for any alleged failures?
VI. CONTESTED ISSUES OF LAW TO BE TRIED AND DETERMINED UPON TRIAL
A. PLAINTIFF
1. Whether or not the claims against Defendants, violated Plaintiffs Constitutional rights, and do the facts warrant a damage award?
B. DEFENDANTS
1. Did Defendants individually violate Plaintiffs constitutional rights?
2. Did Mr. Morris prove the elements of a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights? Prison officials have a duty to provide medical care for inmates, and the denial of medical care may result in pain and suffering constituting cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eight Amendment of the Constitution. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976). Prison officials can be deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs by "intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed." Id. at 104-05. To establish a constitutional violation, an inmate must satisfy a two-part test: (1) that he has a "serious medical need," the "failure of which to treat "could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain"; and (2) that the "defendant's response to the need was deliberately indifferent." Jell v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation omitted). To determine whether the defendants' response was deliberately indifferent, an inmate must show the following: (1) the defendants purposefully acted or failed to respond to the inmate's possible medical need; and (2) the indifference caused harm." Id. Notably, defendants' conduct must demonstrate "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" before it violates the Eighth Amendment. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05.
"Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard." Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). Every claim by an inmate that he has not received adequate medical treatment does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. Eslelle, 429 U.S. at 105. An inmate alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical need "must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful" to the inmate. Id. at 106. For example, a medical professional's mistake, negligence, or malpractice is not sufficient to constitute deliberate indifference. Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060. A medical decision not to order certain testing may qualify as medical malpractice, but it does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 107-108. A difference of medical opinion regarding course of treatment is insufficient to establish a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition Toguchi 391 F.3d at 1058.
The "treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment." Helling v. McKnney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). Conditions of confinement may, consistent with the Constitution, be restrictive and harsh. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). However, "[p]rison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter, food, clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety." Johnson v Lewis 217 F.3d 726 731 (9th Cir 2000)
To challenge the conditions of confinement under the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must meet both an objective test and subjective test. Id. The objective prong requires a showing that the deprivation was sufficiently serious to form the basis for an Eighth Amendment violation. Johnson at 731. When determining whether the conditions of confinement meet the objective prong, the court must analyze each condition to determine whether that specific condition violates the Eighth Amendment. Toussaint v. McCrrthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986). When considering the conditions of confinement, a court also should consider the amount of time to which the prisoner was subjected to the condition. Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005). Speculative and generalized fears of harm do not rise to a sufficiently substantial risk of serious harm. Williams v. wood, 223 Fed.Appx. 670, 671, 2007 WL 654223, at 1 (9th Cir. 2007).
As to the second prong of the Eighth Amendment analysis, prisoners must establish prison officials "deliberate indifference" to the unconstitutional conditions of confinement to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). To demonstrate that a prison official was deliberately indifferent to a serious threat to the inmate's safety, the prisoner must show that "the official [knew] should have known of and disregarded] an excessive risk to inmate . . . safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and [the official] must also draw the inference," (Id. at 837). Mere negligence is insufficient to show a violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id. at 835-36).
VII. EXHIBITS
A. STIPULATED EXHIBITS AS TO AUTHENTICITY AND ADMISSIBILITY
1. Administrative Regulation 740.
B. STIPULATED EXHIBITS AS TO AUTHENTICITY BUT NOT ADMISSIBILITY
None.
C. PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS SUBJECT TO OBJECTIONS
See Attachment:
D. DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS SUBJECT TO OBJECTIONS
1. Plaintiffs Movement History Report;
2. Plaintiffs Housing History Report;
3. Plaintiffs Grievance file, including all relevant grievances; or, to vague
4. Certified Judgment(s) of Conviction of Plaintiff for underlying offense (only if needed for impeachment); or, not relevent
5. Plaintiffs Institutional File ("I-File"), or, not relevent
6. Grievance 2006-30-26975.
7. Grievance 2006-30-63488 8. Plaintiffs Medical Records and Consultation Reports.
9. NOTIS Disciplinary History Report. or, not relevent
10. IR-2018-NNCC000300.
11. IR-2018-NNCC-002639.
12. OIC 433158 reports
13. AR 707, "Inmate Disciplinary Process," effective May 16, 2017.
14. AR 707.1, "Inmate Disciplinary Manual," effective February 22, 2017.
15. AR 707.2, "Chart of Disciplinary Sanctions," effective February 13, 2017.
16. Plaintiffs Case Notes as maintained on the NDOC NOTIS system from 2014 to Present.
17. All prison logs, registers, documents, or other form of data pertaining to any and all of Plaintiff s claims. or not relevent
18. Any and all other exhibits that may support the statements of fact and law cited herein and to rebut Plaintiffs statements, claims, and testimony.
19. Any and all other exhibits that rebut witnesses that might be called to respond to claims made by either Plaintiff or any of his proposed witnesses; or
E. DEPOSITIONS
1. None.
VIII. WITNESSES
A. PLAINTIFF'S WITNESSES:
Plaintiff wishes to reserve the right to call the following persons:
B. DEFENDANT'S WITNESSES:
Defendant wishes to reserve the right to call the following persons:
1. Plaintiff Charles Morris, Inmate, NNCC;
2. Isidro Baca, Defendant, c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of Attorney General, 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717.
3. Romeo Aranas, Defendant, c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of Attorney General, 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717.
4. David Mar, Defendant, c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of Attorney General, 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717.
5. Warden Nethanjah Brietenbach, c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of Attorney General, 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717.
6. Harold Wickham, Former Deputy Director, c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of the Attorney General, 100 N. Carson street, Carson City, NV 89701-4717, (775) 684-1100.
7. Melissa Mitchell, Defendant, c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of Attorney General, 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717.
8. Richard Long, Defendant, c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of Attorney General, 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717.
9. Shelly Conlin, Defendant, c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of Attorney General, 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717.
10. William Miller, Defendant, c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of Attorney General, 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717.
11. NDOC Medical Director, c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of Attorney General, 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717.
12. Custodian(s) of Record for any exhibits identified above, c/o Douglas R. Rands, Office of the Attorney General, 100 N. Carson Street, Carson City, NV 89701-4717, and (775) 684-1100.
13. Any and all rebuttal witnesses that might be called to respond to claims made by either Plaintiff or any of his witnesses.
14. Any and all other witnesses that have personal knowledge supporting Defendant's statements of fact or law cited herein. or, who
15. All witnesses identified by Plaintiff, whether or not called to testify at trial.
Plaintiff and Defendant reserve the right to interpose objections to the calling of any named witness listed above prior to or at trial.
IX. AVAILABLE TRIAL DATES
Plaintiff and Defendant's Counsel expressly understand that the Clerk shall set the trial of this matter at the convenience of the Court's calendar. A jury has been requested.
The following are three weeks in which both parties are available:
X September 11, 2023 trial should be 5-1 days
September 18, 2023
September 25, 2023
IT IS ORDERED that Jury Trial is scheduled for Monday, September 11, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in Reno Courtroom 3 before Judge Robert C. Jones. Calendar Call is scheduled for Monday, August 14, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Reno Courtroom 3 before Judge Robert C. Jones.
[Redacted]