Opinion
3:21-cv-01271-MK
09-11-2023
CHRISTOPHER C. MUELLER, Plaintiff, v. PAT GARRETT; COMMANDER MASSEY; and DEPUTY SHERIFF KOCH, Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
MUSTAFA T. KASUBHAI (HE / HIM), UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Christopher Mueller (“Plaintiff”) filed this action (ECF No. 1) alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Pat Garrett, Commander Massey, and Deputy Sheriff Koch (collectively, “Defendants”) on August 26, 2021. Defendants moved for summary judgment on September 8, 2022. ECF No. 19. For the reasons below, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was an adult in custody of the Oregon Department of Corrections at the Washington County Jail from March 18, 2018, to October 12, 2020. Declaration of Christopher C. Mueller (“Pl.'s Decl.”), ECF No. 60 at ¶ 2. Despite multiple requests and grievances, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with his requested level of dental care and dental hygiene equipment. Pl.'s Decl. at ¶¶ 8-13. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Defendants' deliberate indifference to his oral health needs, he developed generalized periodontal disease and localized recession as assessed by Bryan Rogers, DDS, on August 29, 2020. Pl.'s Decl. at ¶ 16. Plaintiff filed this action alleging violations of his rights under the Eight Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment on August 26, 2021. ECF No. 1.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and admissions on file, if any, show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the [moving party] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Substantive law on an issue determines the materiality of a fact. T.W. Elec. Servs., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). Whether the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party determines the authenticity of the dispute. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving party shows the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and identify facts which show a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324.
Special rules of construction apply when evaluating a summary judgment motion: (1) all reasonable doubts as to the existence of genuine issues of material fact should be resolved against the moving party; and (2) all inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. T.W. Elec., 809 F.2d at 630.
DISCUSSION
Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims because Plaintiff cannot prove that any Defendant showed deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs; (2) Plaintiff cannot prove a Monell claim against the Defendants; and (3) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Because the Court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendants showed deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs, the Court need not consider the issues of Monell or qualified immunity.
I. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs
Defendants argue that summary judgment is appropriate because Plaintiff cannot prove that any Defendant showed deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. As an initial matter, the Court construes Plaintiff's claims under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, because his alleged injuries were sustained while a pretrial detainee. See Mendiola-Martinez v. Arpaio, 836 F.3d 1239, 1246 n.5 (9th Cir. 2016). In the Ninth Circuit, courts evaluate Due Process claims for denial of adequate medical care under an objective deliberate indifference standard. See Gordon v. City of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2018). To prove a Due Process violation based on denial of adequate medical care while a pretrial detainee, a claimant must show that (1) defendants made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions under which the claimant was confined; (2) those conditions put the claimant at substantial risk of suffering serious harm; (3) defendants did not take reasonable available measures to abate that risk, even though a reasonable official in the circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk involved; and (4) that by not taking such measures, the defendants caused the claimant's injuries. Gordon, 888 F.3d at 1125.
Plaintiff argues that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs because they (1) failed to provide him with floss and an extra-soft bristle toothbrush of his preferred brand; and (2) failed to provide adequate dental care despite Plaintiff's complaints of gum pain. As explained below, however, Plaintiff fails to satisfy the third prong set forth in Gordon by failing to provide any evidence that Defendants did not take reasonable measures to abate a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff. See Gordon, 888 F.3d at 1125. This prong must be proved with “a showing of more than negligence but less than subjective intent -something akin to reckless disregard.” Id. at 1125. Reckless disregard, in turn, requires a showing that a defendant disregarded a risk of harm of which the defendant was aware. U.S. v. Rodriguez, 880 F.3d 1151, 1161 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)).
To the extent that Plaintiff purports to satisfy the second Gordon prong regarding the risk of suffering serious harm with references to website articles and Plaintiff's own opinions (see, e.g., ECF No. 59 at 6), this information does not constitute medical evidence that could be admissible at trial and does not raise a genuine issue of material fact.
While in Defendants' custody, Plaintiff filed numerous grievances with jail staff regarding his dental health and verbally notified Defendants of oral pain and dissatisfaction with the level of dental care he received while in pretrial detention. Pl.'s Decl. at ¶ 2. Nevertheless, Plaintiff received dental treatment while in pretrial detention and was taken to outside providers for treatment on multiple occasions. Declaration of Stephanie Brown (“Brown Decl.”), ECF No. 20 at 14-15. Plaintiff was also provided with oral hygiene items such as floss through commissary. Id. at 8. While some of Plaintiff's requests for specialized dental treatment were denied, that denial was based on a dentist's opinion that the requested treatment was not medically necessary, and Plaintiff has provided no evidence to the contrary. See Brown Decl. at 13-14; Pl.'s Decl. at 16. Overall, even assuming as true that there were approximately 90 handwritten inmate request forms from Plaintiff missing from the record (Pl.'s Decl. at ¶ 2), Defendants took reasonable measures to abate a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff's oral health. Brown Decl. (evidence of multiple visits with dental providers and provision of Sensodyne toothpaste and other items).
There is also no evidence in the record that Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiff with dental care for the first 21 months of his pretrial detention rises to the level of deliberate indifference. See Pl.s Decl. at ¶ 12. In the Ninth Circuit, “the mere failure to provide a routine tooth cleaning doesn't create a serious medical need.” Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2002)). On August 26, 2020, registered nurse Brian O'Connor explained to Plaintiff that the COVID-19 pandemic “stopped all dental visits for some time throughout the nation,” but noted that Plaintiff was seen by the dental hygienist on August 25, 2020, and that the jail was “still awaiting the shipment of soft bristle toothbrush[es] to help with your bleeding gum issue.” Brown Decl. at 14. Nurse O'Connor also noted that jail staff had provided Sensodyne toothpaste to Plaintiff according to the hygienist's recommendation on August 25, 2020. Id. Plaintiff has thus failed to create an issue of fact as to whether Defendants acted with “something akin to reckless disregard” with respect to his dental issues within the first 19 months of his pretrial detention. Gordon, 888 F.3d at 1125.
Finally, while Plaintiff alleges that he developed periodontal disease “due to the jail leader's actions” (Pl.'s Decl. at 10), he has failed to provide evidence or legal argument to show that this amounts to a constitutional violation. On August 29, 2020, Plaintiff was examined by Bryan Rogers, DDS, at Oregon Health and Science University Hospital. Dr. Rogers assessed generalized periodontal disease and localized recession. Pl.'s Decl. at ¶ 16. At least one District court has found that failure to provide necessary treatment for an inmate's preexisting periodontal disease can constitute deliberate indifference to a medical need. Williams v. Sutley, 2014 WL 12967583 (C.D. Cal. 2014). The claimant in Williams, however, provided evidence that the defendant's failure to properly treat his periodontal disease resulted in the extraction of over 20 teeth. 2014 WL 12967583 at *5. Here, by contrast, Plaintiff provides evidence that his oral health was in “above average” condition when he was first detained at the Washington County jail on pretrial detention, and had no preexisting oral health condition. Pl.'s Decl. at ¶ 14. Further, Dr. Rogers opined that Plaintiff needed “no treatment” despite his assessment of generalized periodontal disease and localized recession. Pl.'s Decl. at ¶ 16. Dr. Rogers advised Plaintiff to continue with 3-month recalls for hygiene and to obtain a soft bristle toothbrush. Id. at ¶ 16. Plaintiff was released from Defendants' custody on October 12, 2020. Id. at ¶ 2.
Resolving all reasonable doubts as to the existence of genuine issues of material fact against Defendants and drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown a factual issue for trial. T.W. Elec., 809 F.2d at 630. Because Plaintiff has provided no evidence to substantiate a claim that Defendants were objectively and deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, Defendants' motion for summary judgment should be granted.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons above, Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19) should be GRANTED.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment or appealable order.
The Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections to this Findings and Recommendation, if any, are due fourteen (14) days from today's date. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).