Harris v. Mayeri, No. 3:2020cv07233 - Document 18 (N.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT granting 17 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/16/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID D. HARRIS, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 DR. STEPHEN MAYERI, Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 20-cv-07233-SI (pr) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Re: Dkt. No. 17 12 13 David D. Harris filed this pro se prisoner’s civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This 14 action is now before the court for consideration of the motion for summary judgment filed by 15 defendant. Even though Harris was given an opportunity to file an opposition, he has not done so. 16 For the reasons discussed below, summary judgment will be granted in defendant’s favor. 17 BACKGROUND1 18 19 The Parties 20 The events and omissions giving rise to this action occurred in the period from February 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 This order includes many acronyms. Here, in one place, they are: CDCR DBT EOP ICF IDTT LOC M-FAST MHCB MHSDS SSRI SVSP California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation dialectical behavior therapy Enhanced Outpatient Program Intermediate Care Facility Interdisciplinarian Treatment Team level of care Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test Mental Health Crisis Bed Mental Health Services Delivery System selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor Salinas Valley State Prison 1 through May 2019, at the Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”). At the relevant time, Harris was a 2 prisoner of the State of California and had been transferred from another prison to SVSP on February 3 12, 2019 after he was deemed to be a danger to himself. Mayeri Decl. ¶ 9. Also at the relevant 4 time, Dr. Stephen Mayeri, the sole defendant in this action, worked as an SVSP staff psychiatrist 5 and was assigned to Harris’ Interdisciplinary Treatment Team (“IDTT”). Id. ¶¶ 1-2, 6, 9. 6 7 The Dispute 8 The claim that remains for adjudication asserts that Dr. Mayeri was deliberately indifferent United States District Court Northern District of California 9 to Harris’ medical needs.2 Harris seeks monetary and punitive damages. 10 Specifically, the parties disagree as to the level of mental health care provided to Harris. 11 Harris alleges that Dr. Mayeri failed to provide constitutionally adequate care by refusing to increase 12 the level of mental health care provided to Harris, failing to prevent Harris’ suicide attempt, and 13 ending Harris’ prescription for bupropion, an antidepressant. See Docket No. 1. Meanwhile, Dr. 14 Mayeri argues the evidence does not support Harris’ claims. Docket No. 17 at 5. Rather, Dr. Mayeri 15 claims that the evidence reveals that Harris was “already being provided with inpatient psychiatric 16 care—the highest level of mental health care provided by CDCR,” and that Dr. Mayeri was 17 responsive to Harris’ mental health needs by meeting with him multiple times a week and repeatedly 18 adjusting medications to accommodate his complaints. See id. 19 20 Plaintiff’s Version 21 The following background is taken from the court’s order dated January 20, 2021, which 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 described Harris’ claims as follows: Harris suffers from a long history of mental illness that has caused him to be a danger to himself and others. Sometimes he has auditory hallucinations that make him want to kill himself. Dr. Stephen Mayeri, a psychiatrist at SVSP State Prison, was aware of Harris’ danger to himself. Dr. Mayeri petitioned the treatment team to reduce Harris’ level of care, even though he knew Harris was a danger to himself. (Exhibits to the complaint indicate that this happened in about March 2019. See Docket No. 1 2 Upon initial review, the court determined that the complaint stated a § 1983 claim against Dr. Mayeri for deliberate indifference to Harris’ medical needs, and dismissed all other claims and defendants. See Docket No. 7 at 4. 2 at 8, 10.) As a result, Harris’ level of care was reduced to a level that could not meet his mental health needs. Dr. Mayeri’s failure to treat Harris properly and to keep him away from sharp objects allowed Harris to cut his wrists and bang his head. Id. at 3. If Dr. Mayeri had “not improperly and prematurely discharged” Harris, Harris might not have hurt himself. Id. at 4. 1 2 3 Docket No. 7 at 1. 4 5 Defendant’s Version 6 1. 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The CDCR’s Mental Health Services Delivery System The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Mental Health Services Delivery System (“MHSDS”) provides inmates, like Harris, access to mental health services. Wu Decl., Ex. C at 3. The MHSDS provides four levels of care, and an inmate must meet certain specific treatment criteria to receive treatment at a specific level of care (“LOC”). Id. at 811 The lowest LOC is provided through the Correctional Clinical Case Management System. Id. at 9. Inmate patients in this program are relatively stable with mental health symptoms that only require brief intervention. Id. The next (second) LOC is the Enhanced Outpatient Program (“EOP”). Id. Inmate-patients in the outpatient program have serious mental disorders or cannot function in the general prison population. Id. Outpatient program inmates require extensive mental health treatment, but can be managed through outpatient therapy and do not require continuous nursing care. Id. at 9-10. The third LOC is the Mental Health Crisis Bed (“MHCB”). Id. at 10. Crisis bed placement is a short-term care program for inmate-patients who require 24-hour nursing care or are considered a danger to others or themselves as a result of a serious mental disorder. Id. These inmate-patients are generally discharged to a lower LOC if they improve, or are transferred to an inpatient program for more intensive care. Id. at 10-11. The fourth LOC is Inpatient Hospital Care, or the Psychiatric Inpatient Program, which is the highest level of mental health care provided by CDCR. Id. at 11, 21. The CDCR’s inpatient programs provide acute and intermediate mental health care.3 Id. at 21. Acute mental health care 27 28 3 The CDCR used to provide a Day Treatment Program for inmates that required a higher 3 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 consists of short-term, intensive treatment programs for inmate-patients with an acute major mental 2 disorder or an acute exacerbation of a chronic major mental illness. Id. at 22-23. Acute care is 3 provided at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville and California Health Care Facility in 4 Stockton. Id.; see also id., Ex. D. 5 Within the inpatient hospital care are facilities called Intermediate Care Facilities (“ICFs”), 6 which provide long-term, 24-hour nursing care and mental health treatment for inmate-patients with 7 serious mental disorders who cannot function adequately at the outpatient program LOC. See id. 8 at 26-27; see also Mayeri Decl. ¶ 5. Since 2018, CDCR has provided this LOC under the Psychiatric 9 Inpatient Programs at the California Medical Facility, the California Health Care Facility, San 10 Quentin State Prison (for condemned inmates), and SVSP. Wu Decl., Ex. D at 1. The California 11 Department of State Hospitals also provides an equivalent LOC at Atascadero State Hospital and 12 Coalinga State Hospital. Id. Because each ICF provides an equivalent LOC, inmate-patients are 13 generally only transferred between different ICFs when they should be transferred into a less 14 restrictive environment to reach their “Least Restrictive Housing” level. Id. 15 Harris’ Mental Health Treatment at SVSP 16 2. 17 On February 12, 2019, Harris was deemed a danger to himself and transferred to SVSP’s 18 ICF from another prison. See Mayeri Decl. ¶ 9. Harris was placed under the care of his IDTT. See 19 id. As mentioned, Dr. Mayeri was part of Harris’ IDTT, which also consisted of social worker B. 20 Madron, registered nurse D. Ventura, and post-doctoral intern B. Njuguna (all non-parties). Id. 21 While Harris was at SVSP, Dr. Mayeri was the on-call, primary psychiatrist responsible for Harris’ 22 care during the week, while the on-call, covering psychiatrist would provide mental health care on 23 most Fridays and every weekend. Id. 24 At the initial assessment, Harris was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, major 25 depressive disorder, and various drug-use disorders. Id. ¶ 6. In its review of Harris’ medical history, 26 the IDTT noted that Harris had a history of maladaptive behavior aimed to increase his LOC—in 27 28 LOC than is provided in EOP, but did not require 24-hour nursing care. Wu Decl., Ex. C at 35. As of 2018, the Day Treatment Program is no longer active. See id., Ex. D at 1. 4 1 particular, Harris would threaten suicide or claim to have auditory hallucinations encouraging him 2 to bang his head. See Wu Decl., Ex. B at 20, 102.4 According to his previous clinician, Harris 3 would engage in attention-seeking behavior, especially towards female clinicians, as evidenced by 4 his history of indecent exposure. Id. at 103; see, e.g., id. at 191. Dr. Mayeri also noted that Harris 5 appeared preoccupied with obtaining specific medications. See id. at 32. 6 The IDTT formulated a treatment plan for Harris, which included a series of antidepressant, 7 anti-anxiety, and antipsychotic medications, group therapy sessions, and regular meetings with the 8 team. Mayeri Decl. ¶ 9; see also Wu Decl., Ex. B at 14-17, 33. Throughout Harris’ stay at SVSP, 9 he remained in the ICF and was housed in a single cell. Mayeri Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7. United States District Court Northern District of California 10 11 3. 12 Two days after Harris was transferred to SVSP, Dr. Mayeri met with Harris. See Mayeri 13 Decl. ¶ 10. Harris reported difficulty falling asleep, which he attributed to auditory hallucinations. 14 Id. Harris claimed that when he was provided mental health treatment at other institutions, he would 15 regularly be given significantly larger amounts of haloperidol or Haldol, an antipsychotic 16 medication that Dr. Mayeri prescribed for him at SVSP. See Wu Decl., Ex. B at 129. After 17 discussing the risks, benefits, and side effects of the medication with Harris, Dr. Mayeri agreed to 18 increase the Haldol dosage. Id. Harris Sought to Acquire Specific Medications (Including Bupropion) 19 When Dr. Mayeri met with Harris again the next day on February 15, 2019, Harris reported 20 feeling anxious but was coping well. Id.; see also Mayeri Decl. ¶ 11. Later that night, after Dr. 21 Mayeri went home, Harris asked to speak with the nurse on duty, claiming he was suicidal and 22 requesting an injection. See Wu Decl., Ex. B at 225-26. The on-call psychiatrist placed Harris into 23 one-on-one observation with full safety precautions and provided Harris with an additional shot of 24 Haldol. Id. at 129, 226. When the on-call psychiatrist interviewed Harris the next day, Harris 25 reported feeling better and requested to return to his cell. Id. at 129. Accordingly, Harris was 26 discharged from the observation room. Id. 27 28 The court notes that the page numbers for Harris’ medical records begin at “AGO00001,” but for simplicity these page numbers will be referred to page “1,” and so on. See Wu Decl., Ex. B. 5 4 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 Over the next week, Dr. Mayeri met with Harris several times to inform him that the IDTT 2 would taper him off bupropion (also known as Wellbutrin), an antidepressant drug, and quetiapine 3 (also known as Seroquel), an antipsychotic drug. Id. at 127-28. Under the direction of SVSP’s 4 then-Chief Psychiatrist, Mark Ritchie, the IDTT aimed to phase out bupropion because the drug can 5 activate mental health patients, causing manic episodes and contributing to psychosis. Mayeri Decl. 6 ¶ 15. The drug was also prone to abuse by inmate patients. Id. Indeed, both bupropion and 7 quetiapine were “crushed and floated” when provided to inmates, i.e. crushed into powder and 8 administered in liquid, to minimize the risk of cheeking or palming the medication for later abuse. 9 See, e.g., Wu Decl., Ex. B at 26, 30. 10 When Dr. Mayeri first informed Harris that he would be tapered off bupropion and 11 quetiapine on February 25, 2019, Harris stated that he was agreeable to being tapered off quetiapine 12 because it caused significant weight gain. See id. at 127-28. But upon learning that he would be 13 tapered off bupropion, Harris became upset, claiming he would hurt himself if the drug was 14 discontinued. Id. Heeding Harris’ concerns, Dr. Mayeri delayed the taper so they could first 15 increase Harris’ dosage for escitalopram (a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (“SSRI”) also 16 known as Lexapro) to treat his depression. Id.; see also Mayeri Decl. ¶¶ 14-15. 17 Two days later on February 27, 2019, Harris became agitated and claimed he was stressing 18 out over his legal matters. Wu Decl., Ex. B at 127, 222. Harris stated he was suicidal, heard voices 19 telling him to bang his head, and asked for injections. Id. at 222. Dr. Mayeri provided Harris with 20 intra-muscular injections of Haldol and other medications to calm him down. Id. at 127, 222. Dr. 21 Mayeri also placed Harris into one-on-on observation for additional monitoring due to concerns that 22 Harris posed a danger to himself. Id. Harris remained in observation until March 1, 2019, after he 23 reported doing well and denied thoughts of self-harm for two days. Id. at 126-27, 219-22. 24 On February 28, 2019, while Harris was under observation, Dr. Mayeri began to taper 25 Harris’ bupropion dosage. Id. at 126-27. Dr. Mayeri slightly decreased Harris’ bupropion dosage 26 and increased Harris’ dosage for duloxetine, a different antidepressant medication, and his SSRI. 27 Id. at 127. 28 Harris began to continually request bupropion from Dr. Mayeri and other psychiatrists, 6 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 claiming that no other medications worked. See, e.g., Wu Decl., Ex. B at 125. Dr. Mayeri did not 2 ignore Harris’ concerns; he continued to adjust Harris’ medication regimen over the next month. 3 See, e.g., Wu Decl., Ex. E (Harris Depo. at 71:10-25 (Harris stating that his IDTT “tried 4 everything.”)). On March 4, 2019, for example, Dr. Mayeri adjusted the timing of Harris’ tapered 5 bupropion dosage at his request to accommodate his sleeping schedule. Wu Decl., Ex. B at 126. 6 And on March 11, 2019, after Harris had been completely tapered off bupropion, Harris’ IDTT 7 agreed to increased his duloxetine dosage and decreased his SSRI dosage after feedback from Harris 8 that the SSRI was not effective. Id. at 125; see also Mayeri Decl. ¶ 20. 9 Nevertheless, Harris’ preoccupation with acquiring specific medications continued through 10 March 2019. Wu Decl., Ex. B at 125. On March 13, 2019, Harris refused his prescription for oral 11 Haldol. Id. Harris claimed he was stressed because he had to prepare for an upcoming deposition 12 and asked for a shot of Haldol instead. Id. at 124. He reported hearing voices telling him to bang 13 his head and said he would hurt himself. Id. Dr. Mayeri placed Harris under one-on-one observation 14 and provided him with a Haldol injection to calm him down. Id.; Mayeri Decl. ¶ 21. The next day, 15 Harris reported feeling better after using his coping mechanisms and was discharged from 16 observation. Mayeri Decl. ¶ 22. 17 On Sunday, March 17, 2019, the on-call nursing staff responded to an alarm after Harris 18 made four to five superficial lacerations to his left arm using a razor. See Wu Decl., Ex. B at 203- 19 04. Dr. Mayeri was not on duty that day because it was a Sunday. Mayeri Decl. ¶ 23. Harris 20 apparently found the razor in the facility yard and custody staff failed to find it during a routine 21 search as he was returned to his cell. See Harris Depo. at 48:25-49:7. The IDTT was not involved 22 in that search. Id. at 48:3-20. When the nursing staff cleaned the lacerations, Harris reported he 23 had swallowed the razor. See Wu Decl., Ex. B at 203. Medical staff notified the on-call psychiatrist, 24 see id. at 123, and transferred Harris to an outside emergency room for imaging and further 25 evaluation, see id. at 202-03. Harris’ x-ray report showed that the swallowed razor blade did not 26 cause any serious injury, and prison staff transported Harris back to SVSP for continued monitoring 27 under one-on-one observation. Id. at 202. 28 The next day, March 18, 2019, Dr. Mayeri met with Harris to evaluate his mental health. Id. 7 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 at 123. Harris stated he felt safe while in observation and requested to remain there. Id. 2 On March 19, 2019, Harris initially reported to nursing staff that he felt better, but wanted 3 to remain in one-on-one observation. Id. at 194. Later that day, Harris changed his mind after 4 attending a deposition where he reportedly learned he would be receiving money from a settlement. 5 Id. at 122. When Dr. Mayeri met with Harris that afternoon to assess his mental health, Harris 6 claimed he felt much better and denied requesting to stay in observation. Id. at 122-23; see also 7 Mayeri Decl. ¶ 25. Accordingly, Dr. Mayeri discontinued Harris’ observation. See id. 8 Over the next month, Harris would routinely request specific medication from the on-call 9 psychiatrist or nursing staff while Dr. Mayeri was off duty during the weekends. See, e.g., Mayeri 10 Decl. ¶¶ 26-27, 34, 36; Wu Decl., Ex. B at 111-14, 119-120, 122. When those requests for additional 11 medication were denied owing to abuse or health risk, Harris would claim to have auditory 12 hallucinations telling him to bang his head or threaten self-harming behavior to obtain one-on-one 13 observation and additional medication. Id. For example, on March 23, 2019, Harris demanded 14 additional doses of Effexor, an antidepressant, from the on-call psychiatrist. Id. at 122. When the 15 request was denied, Harris claimed he did not feel safe and requested one-on-one observation, which 16 was provided as a safety precaution. Id. at 190. On March 30, 2019, Harris demanded Ativan, a 17 sedative, from the on-call psychiatrist, who denied the request due to abuse risk. Id. at 120. Two 18 days later, Harris again requested Ativan from a different psychiatrist and nursing staff, claiming he 19 felt unsafe and stressed owing to family issues. See id. at 119-20, 172. Harris was provided 20 medication and again placed in observation as a precaution. Id. 21 Throughout April and May 2019, Harris continued to display a similar pattern of behavior 22 to acquire brief placements in one-on-one observation and additional medication. Mayeri Decl. 23 ¶¶ 27, 34, 36, 41, 44; Wu Decl., Ex. B at 108-09, 111-114. And each time, Harris would report 24 feeling better in follow-up assessments with Dr. Mayeri, who would discharge him from 25 observation. See Mayeri Decl. ¶¶ 28, 31, 42, 45. 26 Dr. Mayeri continued to evaluate and adjust Harris’ medication to address his repeated 27 claims that his medications were not working. Id. ¶ 29. On April 4, 2019, Dr. Mayeri adjusted 28 Harris’ antidepressant dosages after discussing the risks, benefits, and potential side effects of those 8 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 medications when Harris claimed that the current dosages were insufficient to treat his depression. 2 Id.; see also Wu Decl., Ex. B at 118. Dr. Mayeri also discontinued Harris’ regular prescription for 3 oral Haldol and replaced it with Olanzapine, another antipsychotic medication, after Harris claimed 4 that Olanzapine worked better for him than Haldol. Id. But on April 18, 2019, Harris expressed a 5 preference for Haldol over Olanzapine because the latter caused weight gain, and Dr. Mayeri again 6 adjusted Harris’ medication regimen accordingly. Mayeri Decl. ¶ 33; Wu Decl., Ex. B at 114-16. 7 Dr. Mayeri also adjusted Harris’ anti-anxiety medication to assist with his sleep. Id. And on May 8 8, 2019, Dr. Mayeri again adjusted Harris’ anti-anxiety medication after Harris complained. Mayeri 9 Decl. ¶ 43; Wu Decl., Ex. B at 109. However, Harris consistently resisted all changes to his 10 medication regimen and instead continued to seek bupropion. Mayeri Decl. ¶ 40; see also Wu Decl., 11 Ex. B at 111. For example, on May 1, 2019, Dr. Mayeri offered to adjust Harris’ medications after 12 he claimed his medications were not working; Dr. Mayeri offered to: adjust Harris’ antipsychotic 13 medication, adjust his antidepressant medication, and prescribe lithium. Id. Harris refused all 14 changes and continued to request bupropion. Id. 15 16 4. 17 Upon his admission to SVSP’s ICF, Dr. Mayeri noted that Harris had previously requested 18 enrollment in dialectical behavior therapy (“DBT”). See Mayeri Decl. ¶ 8. DBT is a type of 19 cognitive behavioral therapy that aims to help patients identify and change negative behavior and 20 thinking patterns. Id. At his first IDTT meeting, the team agreed that DBT could help Harris and 21 enrolled him in two DBT programs. See id. ¶ 9; see also Wu Decl., Ex. B at 68. Over the next three 22 months, Harris’ IDTT kept him enrolled in various DBT groups and other similar therapeutic groups 23 to address his mental disorders. See, e.g., Wu Decl., Ex. B at 259-60 (therapy group teaching coping 24 skills), 261 (substance abuse group using DBT skills). Harris Was Enrolled in Dialectical Behavior Therapy Groups 25 Harris’ attendance at group therapy sessions was sporadic. For example, on February 26, 26 2019, Harris attended his first DBT group, see Wu Decl., Ex. B at 269, but then failed to attend his 27 second session on March 12, 2019, see id. at 262-63. Harris missed another DBT session on the 28 morning of April 2, 2019, after he sought placement in one-on-one observation. See id. at 257-58. 9 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 And on April 3, 2019, after he was discharged from observation the previous evening, Harris refused 2 to attend either his DBT substance abuse group or his DBT mood management group. See id. at 3 253-55. Despite his occasional refusals to attend group therapies, however, Harris remained 4 enrolled in DBT groups until he was transferred to another prison. See id. at 231-32 (noting 5 attendance at DBT group on May 7, 2019). 6 In late April 2019, Harris was also referred to a staff psychologist to complete a behavior 7 chain analysis, a type of cognitive behavioral therapy aimed to help Harris identify the triggers for 8 his head-banging and provide him with the tools to prevent that behavior. See Mayeri Decl., Ex. A 9 at 2-4. In that one-on-one analysis, Harris identified family issues involving his brother as stressors 10 contributing to his head-banging. Id. at 3. Notably, Harris did not mention auditory hallucinations 11 in the chain of events contributing to his head-banging. Id. at 2. Harris was encouraged to attend 12 his DBT groups and practice skills learned in those groups to regulate his emotions and prevent self- 13 harm. Id. at 4. 14 15 5. 16 In April 2019, Dr. Mayeri requested a forensic assessment of Harris’ symptoms to screen 17 for malingering behaviors. Mayeri Decl. ¶ 37; see also id., Ex. A at 1, 5-8. On April 30, 2019, staff 18 psychologist Dr. Mark Lee conducted a Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (“M-FAST”) 19 for Harris. Id., Ex. A at 5-8. Dr. Lee, a non-party, was not part of Harris’ regular IDTT. See Harris 20 Depo. at 46:18-22. 21 psychopathology.” Mayeri Decl., Ex. A at 8. He noted that Harris appeared to exaggerate his mental 22 health symptoms. In addition, although Harris claimed to experience severe levels of auditory 23 hallucinations, he displayed none of the typical signs of auditory hallucinations—behavior which 24 was corroborated by other medical and mental health staff. Id. at 7-8. Similar inconsistencies in 25 Harris’ symptoms had been noted by other staff. See, e.g., id. at 2-4 (clinical psychologist Dr. 26 Saldivar noting that Harris did not mention auditory hallucinations during therapy designed to 27 identify triggers for self-harm). 28 Harris Was Discharged to EOP (Lower LOC) Dr. Lee found that the test was “highly suggestive of malingered Following these assessments, Harris’ IDTT concluded that discharge to an EOP (a lower 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 LOC) was appropriate because his continued enrollment in an inpatient setting was only reinforcing 2 negative behaviors. See Mayeri Decl. ¶ 39; see also Wu Decl., Ex. B at 1-2, 44. In particular, Dr. 3 Mayeri noted in his May 2, 2019 discharge summary notes that Harris was resistant to implementing 4 the coping skills taught by his therapy sessions, including two DBT groups. See Wu Decl., Ex. B 5 at 2. Dr. Mayeri also noted that Harris was fixated on bupropion and resisted the medication regimen 6 provided by his IDTT. Id. Likewise, Harris’ IDTT noted that, after being told he did not qualify 7 for a transfer to a state hospital, Harris repeatedly engaged in self-injurious behavior and endorsed 8 suicidal ideation nearly every weekend to fabricate evidence that he required a higher LOC. Id. at 9 44. When the team referred Harris for a behavior chain analysis to provide him with more targeted 10 coping skills, Harris refused to implement any such skills and insisted that nothing but medications 11 would work. Id. Combined with the M-FAST assessment, Harris’ IDTT concluded that discharge 12 to an EOP was appropriate. Id.; see also Mayeri Decl. ¶ 39. 13 On May 15, 2019, Harris’ IDTT referred his case to the Coordinated Clinical Assessment 14 Team for a second opinion. Mayeri Decl. ¶ 46; Wu Decl., Ex. B at 271, Ex. D at 2. The assessment 15 team included psychologists and psychiatrists at the CDCR’s inpatient reporting unit headquarters, 16 the mental health program coordinator, and other members of the SVSP Psychiatric Inpatient 17 Program staff. Id. In their discussion, the assessment team noted that Harris appeared fixated on 18 being transferred to a state hospital, getting enrolled into a specific DBT program at the California 19 Medical Facility, and acquiring specific medications—all of which were likely motivating his 20 reports of suicidal thoughts and claims of auditory hallucinations. Id. The assessment team 21 concluded that discharge to an EOP was appropriate because keeping Harris in an inpatient setting 22 was reinforcing his maladaptive strategies. Id. Accordingly, Harris was discharged to an EOP and 23 transferred out of SVSP’s ICF on May 17, 2019. Mayeri Decl. ¶ 47. 24 25 VENUE AND JURISDICTION 26 Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the 27 events or omissions giving rise to the complaint occurred in Monterey County, located in the 28 Northern District. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 84, 1391(b). This court has federal question jurisdiction over 11 1 this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 2 United States District Court Northern District of California 3 LEGAL STANDARD 4 Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery, and affidavits show that there 5 is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [that] the moving party is entitled to judgment as 6 a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A court will grant summary judgment “against a party who 7 fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s 8 case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial . . . since a complete failure of 9 proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other 10 facts immaterial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). A fact is material if it 11 might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law, and a dispute about a material fact is 12 genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving 13 party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 14 Generally, as is the situation with defendant’s challenge to the Eighth Amendment claim, 15 the moving party bears the initial burden of identifying those portions of the record which 16 demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving 17 party to “go beyond the pleadings, and by [his] own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to 18 interrogatories, and admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine 19 issue for trial.’” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. 20 When a defendant moves for summary judgment on an affirmative defense on which he 21 bears the burden of proof at trial, he must come forward with evidence which would entitle him to 22 a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial. See Houghton v. South, 965 F.2d 23 1532, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992). 24 The court’s function on a summary judgment motion is not to make credibility 25 determinations or weigh conflicting evidence with respect to a disputed material fact. See T.W. 26 Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). The evidence 27 must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and the inferences to be drawn 28 from the facts must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See id. at 631. 12 1 A verified complaint may be used as an opposing affidavit under Rule 56, as long as it is 2 based on personal knowledge and sets forth specific facts admissible in evidence. See Schroeder v. 3 McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 460 & nn.10-11 (9th Cir. 1995) (treating plaintiff’s verified complaint as 4 opposing affidavit where, even though verification not in conformity with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, plaintiff 5 stated under penalty of perjury that contents were true and correct, and allegations were not based 6 purely on his belief but on his personal knowledge). Harris’ complaint was made under penalty of 7 perjury and therefore will be considered as part of his opposition to the motion for summary 8 judgment. 9 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 DISCUSSION 11 In its January 20, 2021 order of service, the court found that, liberally construed, the 12 complaint stated a cognizable § 1983 claim against Dr. Mayeri for violating Harris’ rights under the 13 Eighth Amendment. See Docket No. 7. 14 15 Mental Health Care Claim 16 Deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth 17 Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 18 97, 104 (1976); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004). To establish an Eighth 19 Amendment claim on a condition of confinement, such as medical care, a prisoner-plaintiff must 20 show: (1) an objectively, sufficiently serious, deprivation, and (2) the official was, subjectively, 21 deliberately indifferent to the inmate’s health or safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 22 (1994). These two requirements are known as the objective and subjective prongs of an Eighth 23 Amendment deliberate indifference claim. 24 To satisfy the objective prong, there must be a “serious” medical need. A serious medical 25 need exists if the failure to treat an inmate’s condition “could result in further significant injury” or 26 the “‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 27 2006). 28 For the subjective prong, there must be deliberate indifference. A defendant is deliberately 13 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 indifferent if he knows that an inmate faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that 2 risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. The defendant must 3 not only “be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious 4 harm exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” 5 demonstrated when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or 6 it may be inferred from the way in which prison officials provide medical care. See McGuckin v. 7 Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1062 (9th Cir. 1992) (finding that a delay of seven months in providing 8 medical care during which a medical condition was left virtually untreated and plaintiff was forced 9 to endure “unnecessary pain” sufficient to present colorable § 1983 claim), overruled on other 10 grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). There must 11 be “harm caused by the indifference,” although the harm does not need to be substantial. See Jett, 12 439 F.3d at 1096. Id. Deliberate indifference may be 13 A mere difference of opinion as to which medically acceptable course of treatment should 14 be followed does not establish deliberate indifference. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 15 1989) (summary judgment for defendants was properly granted because plaintiff’s evidence that a 16 doctor told him surgery was necessary to treat his recurring abscesses showed only a difference of 17 opinion as to proper course of care where prison medical staff treated his recurring abscesses with 18 medicines and hot packs). “[T]o prevail on a claim involving choices between alternative courses 19 of treatment, a prisoner must show that the chosen course of treatment ‘was medically unacceptable 20 under the circumstances,’ and was chosen ‘in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [the 21 prisoner’s] health.’” Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058 (second alteration in original). 22 Here, as a threshold matter, there is no dispute that Harris had a serious medical need (for 23 the subjective standard) based on his mental health problems. The need to provide psychiatric care 24 requires that prison officials monitor detainees whom they know are suicidal. See Simmons v. 25 Navajo Cnty., 609 F.3d 1011, 1018 (9th Cir. 2010) overruled on other grounds by Castro v. Cnty. 26 of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). “[A] heightened suicide risk can present 27 a serious medical need.” Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1018 (citation omitted). Defendant appears to 28 concede that Harris had a serious medical need while he was at SVSP’s ICF. See Docket No. 17 at 14 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 16-18. 2 The case of Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2014), is very similar to the present 3 case. In Cano, the prisoner claimed that he had not received proper care for his mental illness, with 4 the result that he became suicidal. The Ninth Circuit upheld summary judgment for the defendants 5 because of the ample evidence that Cano had received mental health care. There were prison health 6 care records showing that Cano was seen by mental health care employees regularly for his 7 complaints, e.g., evidence of numerous visits by psychologists and psychiatrists over a three-year 8 period, “a great deal of evidence that his suicide threats were manipulative in nature,” and evidence 9 that “during follow-up visits to his cell, Cano’s chief complaint was boredom, and he sought a 10 television and radio in his cell.” Id. at 1217-18. The record also disclosed that Cano was an 11 uncooperative and difficult patient, and that the violent and threatening behavior he often exhibited 12 meant that he could not be placed in a lower custody part of the prison. Id. at 1218. There also were 13 “countless forms in the record demonstrating follow-up by staff, including cell-front visits to check 14 on Cano’s mood, continuous progress reports, psychiatric follow-ups, mental health treatment plans, 15 and watch discharge summaries.” Id. The Ninth Circuit concluded that, on this record, no 16 reasonable trier of fact could find that there was deliberate indifference to Cano’s complaints about 17 his mental health needs. Id. 18 As in Cano, the numerous medical records in the present case—270+ pages of records 19 generated in just a three-month stay at SVSP’s ICF—shows that Harris received numerous 20 evaluations by doctors (including Dr. Mayeri), therapists and nurses, and received medications 21 throughout his stay at SVSP. See Wu Decl., Ex. B at 1-270. Also as in Cano, the records show that 22 SVSP’s mental health and custody staff thought Harris displayed manipulative behavior, i.e., 23 manipulating health care staff with threats of self-harm or suicide to gain placement in one-on-one 24 observation and garner attention or medication. See id., Ex. B at 20, 102, 125-129, 191. 25 On the evidence in the record, defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Harris’ claims 26 that Dr. Mayeri were deliberately indifferent to his mental health needs. As mentioned, the evidence 27 in the record suffices to allow a jury to conclude that Harris’ mental health problems presented a 28 serious medical need. However, this is not so for the subjective prong. Even viewed in the light 15 1 most favorable to Harris, the evidence in the record does not suffice to allow a rational jury to 2 conclude that Dr. Mayeri was deliberately indifferent to Harris’ mental health care needs. That 3 evidence shows the following: As soon as Harris arrived at SVSP, he was placed in the highest 4 level of mental health care—the Psychiatric Inpatient Program at SVSP’s ICF—while being treated 5 by Dr. Mayeri. See Mayeri Decl. ¶ 6; see also Wu Decl., Ex. B at 14 (initial placement in SVSP’s 6 ICF), 37-86 (continued placement in the SVSP’s ICF). Harris was seen regularly by Dr. Mayeri, 7 and in fact at Harris’ deposition, he estimated that Dr. Mayeri “[saw] him more than probably every 8 [other inmate at SVSP.]” Harris Depo. at 52:6-11. Harris was provided constant attention from Dr. 9 Mayeri and his IDTT multiple times a week to: adjust his medications, attend group therapies, and United States District Court Northern District of California 10 address other mental health issues as they arose. See generally, Mayeri Decl. 11 The court also turns to Harris’ specific deliberate indifference claims relating to Dr. 12 Mayeri’s: failure to place Harris in one-on-one observation (before his March 17, 2019 suicide 13 attempt); failure to keep him away from sharp objects; and decision not to provide him with 14 buproprion. See Docket No. 1 at 3-4. 15 First, Harris’ claim that Dr. Mayeri “prematurely and inappropriately discharged [him],”see 16 Docket No. 1 at 4, could be construed as a challenge to Dr. Mayeri’s decision to discharge him from 17 one-on-one observation a few days before his suicide attempt on March 17, 2019, see Docket No. 7 18 at 2. However, the undisputed facts demonstrate that Dr. Mayeri was neither subjectively aware of 19 any acute danger to Harris’ health nor did Dr. Mayeri consciously disregard any such danger. 20 Just like Cano, another Ninth Circuit case, Simmons v. Navajo County, is instructive because 21 it has some similarities to the present case. In Simmons, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district 22 court’s order granting summary judgment for the defendants. See 609 F.3d at 1018-20. One of the 23 defendants, a nurse at an Arizona county jail, determined that Simmons was a suicide risk and 24 initially placed him under constant observation. 25 observation, he was evaluated regularly and consistently denied having suicidal thoughts. Id. The 26 nurse accordingly downgraded Simmons’ status and removed him from being under constant 27 observation. Id. However, after a few weeks, Simmons committed suicide by hanging himself with 28 a rope fabricated from medical gauze. Id. at 1016. Holding that the decedent’s family failed to 16 Id. at 1015. While Simmons was under United States District Court Northern District of California 1 demonstrate deliberate indifference on the part of the nurse, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that the 2 plaintiffs were required to “demonstrate a subjective awareness of a substantial risk of imminent 3 suicide.” Id. at 1018 (emphasis in original). The Ninth Circuit further noted that “[t]here [was] no 4 indication that in the hours before [Simmons’] suicide, [the nurse] ‘observed suicidal actions, heard 5 statements of a suicidal nature, or witnessed other evidence of [Simmons’] suicidal intent’ that 6 would have alerted her to [Simmons’] impending suicidal crisis.” Id. (quoting Clouthier v. Cnty. of 7 Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1246 n.4 (9th Cir. 2010) overruled on other grounds by Castro, 833 8 F.3d at 1070). Rather, the nurse was off duty and could not have observed the inmate’s behavior. 9 Id. And the nurse’s belief that the inmate “was at some risk of suicide warranting continuing 10 precautions” was not enough absent “evidence that [she] was subjectively aware that [Simmons] 11 was actively suicidal at the time [she] left [her] shift.” Id. at 1019 (quoting Clouthier, 591 F.3d at 12 1247). 13 Here, Dr. Mayeri discharged Harris from one-on-one observation on March 14, 2019 after 14 Harris denied thoughts of suicide or self-harm and reported that he was doing better. See Wu Decl., 15 Ex. B at 124, 206-07. Over the next two days, Harris continued to receive intermediate inpatient 16 care through SVSP’s ICF without incident. Just like in Simmons, no evidence exists showing that 17 Dr. Mayeri (or any other staff) “observed suicidal actions, heard statements of a suicidal nature, or 18 witnessed other evidence” of Harris’ suicidal intent that would have alerted Dr. Mayeri to Harris’ 19 “impending suicidal crisis.” 609 F.3d at 1018. And, as in Simmons, Dr. Mayeri was not on duty on 20 March 17, 2019 (which fell on a Sunday) when Harris attempted suicide with a razor, and thus Dr. 21 Mayeri could not have observed Harris’ behavior leading up to the attempt. Id. The fact that Harris 22 had been placed under one-on-one observation before is insufficient to demonstrate that Dr. Mayeri 23 had a subjective awareness of substantial danger. See id. (“Placing a pretrial detainee on some level 24 of suicide watch, even the highest level, does not demonstrate a subjective awareness of a substantial 25 risk of imminent suicide.”) (emphasis in original) (quoting Collignon v. Milwaukee Cnty., 163 F.3d 26 982, 990 (7th Cir. 1998)). 27 Next, the court also finds unavailing Harris’ claim that Dr. Mayeri failed to keep him away 28 from sharp objects. In his deposition, Harris testified that razors are contraband items, see Harris 17 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 Depo. at 47:18-23, and it was the sole responsibility of custody staff to ensure he did not have those 2 items, see id. at 47:24-48:20. No evidence exists showing that Dr. Mayeri knew Harris illicitly 3 obtained a razor and consciously disregarded the risk the razor posed to Harris’ health. See 4 Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1019 (“No reasonable jury could thus conclude that [the nurse] consciously 5 disregarded an excessive risk to [Simmons’] safety” when there was “no evidence in the record . . . 6 that she was even aware that [Simmons’] had accumulated the gauze.”). To the contrary, the 7 evidence demonstrates that Harris had a history of making threats of self-harm or suicide that were 8 manipulative in nature, i.e., to gain placement in one-on-one observation and garner attention or 9 medication. See Wu Decl., Ex. B at 20, 102, 125-129, 191. No indication exists in the record 10 showing that Harris was in an impending suicidal crisis and not simply continuing his pattern of 11 maladaptive behavior. See Cano, 739 F.3d at 1217 (inmate’s placement on suicide watch fifteen 12 times over sixteen months owing to threats of self-harm was evidence that his suicide threats were 13 manipulative in nature). And, in any case, medical staff on duty provided immediate care after 14 Harris superficially cut his wrists and swallowed the razor. See Wu Decl., Ex. B at 123, 203-04. 15 Finally, Harris claims that Dr. Mayeri failed to properly treat his mental disorders by tapering 16 him off bupropion. Docket No.1 at 3; see also Harris Depo. at 19:10-20:25. But on the record 17 before the court, no rational jury could find an Eighth Amendment violation. No evidence has been 18 presented by Harris showing that bupropion was the only effective or appropriate medication. The 19 record shows that Harris was on bupropion when he was deemed a danger to himself before his 20 admission to SVSP’s ICF. See Wu Decl., Ex. B at 14-19. Harris conceded at his deposition that he 21 had suicidal thoughts while he was taking bupropion. See Harris Depo. at 38:16-22. Thus, Dr. 22 Mayeri’s chosen course of treatment was reasonable under the circumstances, and his actions do not 23 amount to an Eighth Amendment violation. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058. Ultimately, Harris has 24 managed only to show a difference of opinion about the adequacy of the mental health care treatment 25 he received at the prison. Showing only a difference of opinion does not defeat defendant’s motion 26 for summary judgment on his Eighth Amendment claim. See id.; Sanchez, 891 F.2d at 242. 27 In sum, Harris has failed to show a genuine issue for trial in support of a claim that Dr. 28 Mayeri was deliberately indifferent to Harris’ mental health needs. Thus, viewing the evidence in 18 1 the light most favorable to Harris, no reasonable jury could return a verdict against Dr. Mayeri on 2 Harris’ Eighth Amendment claim. United States District Court Northern District of California 3 4 Qualified Immunity 5 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability for civil 6 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights 7 of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). 8 The doctrine of qualified immunity attempts to balance two important and sometimes competing 9 interests: “the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and 10 the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties 11 reasonably.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). 12 To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts must 13 consider (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right 14 was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. The 15 inquiry of whether a constitutional right was clearly established must be undertaken in light of the 16 “specific context” of the case, not as a broad general proposition. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 17 202 (2001); see also Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236 (overruling Saucier’s requirement that qualified 18 immunity analysis proceeds in a particular sequence). Courts may “exercise their sound discretion 19 in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in 20 light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. “An officer 21 cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right unless the right’s contours were 22 sufficiently definite that any reasonable official in [his] shoes would have understood that he was 23 violating it, meaning that existing precedent . . . placed the statutory or constitutional question 24 beyond debate.” City and Cnty. of S.F. v. Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600, 611 (2015) (alteration and 25 omission in original) (citation omitted). This is an “exacting standard” which “gives government 26 officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments by protect[ing] all but the 27 plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Id. (alteration in original) (internal 28 quotation marks omitted). 19 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 For an Eighth Amendment violation based on a condition of confinement (such as a mental 2 health care need), the official must subjectively have a sufficiently culpable state of mind, i.e., he 3 “‘must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of 4 serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.’ Thus, a reasonable prison official 5 understanding that he cannot recklessly disregard a substantial risk of serious harm, could know all 6 of the facts yet mistakenly, but reasonably, perceive that the exposure in any given situation was not 7 that high. In these circumstances, he would be entitled to qualified immunity.” Estate of Ford v. 8 Ramirez-Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 1050 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 834, 9 and citing Saucier, 533 U.S. at 205). Although the general rule of deliberate indifference had been 10 expressed in Farmer, no authorities had “fleshed out ‘at what point a risk of inmate assault becomes 11 sufficiently substantial for Eighth Amendment purposes.’” Estate of Ford, 301 F.3d at 1051 (quoting 12 Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 n.3). Because it had not been fleshed out, “it would not be clear to a 13 reasonable prison official when the risk of harm from double-celling psychiatric inmates with one 14 another changes from being a risk of some harm to a substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer left 15 that an open issue. This necessarily informs ‘the dispositive question’ of whether it would be clear 16 to reasonable correctional officers that their conduct was unlawful in the circumstances that [they] 17 confronted.” Estate of Ford, 301 F.3d at 1051. Each of the defendants in Ford was entitled to 18 qualified immunity even though he was aware of some information that there was some risk in 19 double-celling the violent inmate with the decedent or any other inmate. 20 As in Estate of Ford, the present case involves a situation where the general Eighth 21 Amendment duty is well-known but the particular obligations for correctional staff in certain 22 situations are open for debate. There is caselaw holding that unnecessary delay in providing medical 23 care may amount to deliberate indifference, see, e.g., McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1062, but the cases 24 have not fleshed out just how quickly an officer must summon mental health care staff when an 25 inmate requests mental health care. Nor have the cases fleshed out the requirements for prioritizing 26 requests for mental health care when the inmate is at the time engaged in misbehavior that may or 27 may not be a product of his mental illness. 28 Here, Dr. Mayeri is entitled to qualified immunity against the deliberate indifference claim. 20 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 The evidence in the record does not establish a violation of Harris’ Eighth Amendment rights based 2 on Dr. Mayeri’s responses to Harris’ requests for mental health care. Defendant prevails on the first 3 prong of the Saucier analysis. Even if a constitutional violation had been shown, however, 4 defendant would prevail on the second prong of the Saucier analysis. Dr. Mayeri determined that 5 Harris’ requests for mental health care all appear to be a product of his mental illness: borderline 6 personality disorder. See Mayeri Decl. ¶¶ 39, 46. Thus, a reasonable medical staff member in Dr. 7 Mayeri’s position would not have understood that it would be unlawful to determine that Harris’ 8 repeated claims of suicidal or self-harming thoughts were likely the result of his maladaptive 9 behaviors, motivated by his desire to get transferred to a facility with less restrictive housing, to 10 obtain specific medication, or to generate attention. See id. The law is not clear as to the extent Dr. 11 Mayeri was required to credit Harris’ claims and acquiesce to his specific treatment demands, 12 particularly when the IDTT and Coordinated Clinical Assessment Team agreed with Dr. Mayeri’s 13 assessment, and also especially when Dr. Mayeri was aware that Harris was receiving ongoing 14 mental health care at the highest LOC—the Psychiatric Inpatient Program at SVSP’s ICF. See id. 15 ¶¶ 6, 8, 9, 20, 30, 46; Wu Decl., Ex. B at 55, 72-73, 271. Therefore, defendant is entitled to judgment 16 as a matter of law on the qualified immunity defense for Harris’ Eighth Amendment claim. 17 18 19 20 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Docket No. 17. Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Harris’ complaint. 21 The clerk shall close the file. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 25 Dated: March 16, 2022 ______________________________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 26 27 28 21

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.