Battersby v. Lien

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 29, 2023
• Docket: 3:20-cv-06561
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ERICK ALLEN BATTERSBY, Case No. 20-cv-06561-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION TO AMEND; SCREENING THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND 10 IVRA LIEH, et al., ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY-RELATED MOTIONS 11 Defendants. Docket Nos. 80-81, 84-87 12 13 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Erick Battersby, currently an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City, 16 California, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to complain about events 17 and omissions at a jail at which he earlier was housed. Docket No. 1. The Court screened the 18 initial complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A, dismissed Defendant Nurse 19 Edmundson from the action, and ordered all other Defendants to respond to Mr. Battersby’s 20 claims. Docket No. 8. Mr. Battersby subsequently filed an amended complaint (“FAC”), which 21 included new allegations against Nurse Edmondson. Docket No. 31. The Court screened the 22 FAC, and ordered Nurse Edmondson to respond to Mr. Battersby’s claims. Docket No. 62. 23 Mr. Battersby then moved for leave to file a second amended complaint (“SAC”), 24 explaining that he intended to file it in place of the FAC. Docket No. 66. The Court granted Mr. 25 Battersby’s motion, screened the SAC and ordered Defendants to respond to Mr. Battersby’s 26 claims, and addressed several discovery motions. See Docket No. 79. 27 Shortly thereafter Mr. Battersby moved to file a third amended complaint (“TAC”). See 1 respond to Mr. Battersby’s motion to file a TAC. See Docket No. 83. Defendants filed no 2 opposition to Mr. Battersby’s TAC. See generally Docket. 3 Before trial, courts are encouraged to “freely give leave” to amend. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 15(a)(2). Defendants have not yet filed a dispositive motion against the TAC, and appear unlikely 5 to be prejudiced by its amendment. See generally, Docket. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Mr. 6 Battersby’s motion to file a TAC, and screens the TAC below.1 The Court notes that the TAC 7 adds another Defendant who must be served, and so a briefing schedule cannot be established at 8 this time. 9 Mr. Battersby also has filed multiple motions related to discovery. Docket Nos. 80, 84-87. 10 Mr. Battersby’s discovery-related motions will be addressed below. 11 II. BACKGROUND 12 Mr. Battersby currently is imprisoned at Pelican Bay State Prison. See TAC at 1. Before 13 his conviction, he was detained at Humboldt County Correctional Facility (“HCCF”), from about 14 October 2017 through about December 2019. See generally, id. 15 Mr. Battersby complains that, while housed at HCCF, he developed Raynaud’s syndrome. 16 He explains that Raynaud’s syndrome is an intense “overreaction to cold,” and can result in “tissue 17 loss and frostbite.” TAC, Ex. A at 1. Because of this condition, Mr. Battersby needs extra 18 blankets to keep warm. See id. He complains that various members of the jail’s medical and 19 custodial staff interfered with his use of extra blankets, specifically not allowing him to have an 20 extra medical blanket and disciplining him for violating the jail captain’s Bed-and-Dress rule 21 when he stayed under blankets during the day. See id. Mr. Battersby eventually was allowed to 22 have an extra medical blanket and to be under blankets during the day. 23 Mr. Battersby names the following Defendants: Nurse Iver Lien, Nurse Edmondson, 24 Doctor Ziegler, and Nurse Santuccio (“Medical Defendants”); and Captain Christian, Corporal 25 Jackson, Corporal Twitchel, Corporal Freese, and Correctional Officer Coleman (“Correctional 26 Defendants”). TAC at 3. All Defendants are employed at the Humboldt County Correctional Facility. 27 1 See id. 2 The TAC alleges the following: 3 Mr. Battersby put in a sick-call slip on October 13, 2017 (and another before January 3, 4 2018, when he was not seen for the first one) for care for a “rash and dull pain in [his] feet like 5 [his] feet were stuck in a bucket of ice.” TAC, Ex. B at 8. He was seen by Nurse Iver2 on January 6 3, 2018. See id. Mr. Battersby informed Nurse Iver that his feet “hurt.” Id. Nurse Iver said that 7 Mr. Battersby’s feet were fine, and the rash had something to do with circulation. See id. 8 Mr. Battersby put in another sick-call slip on August 6, 2019, stating the “issue with [his] 9 feet [was] getting worse.” Id. Nurse Iver saw him three days later, and said it was probably 10 nothing but that he (Iver) would put in a referral to see the doctor. See id. Mr. Battersby reminded 11 Nurse Iver that his feet were still hurting on September 1, and submitted a sick-call slip on 12 September 30 because he still had not seen the doctor. See id. 13 Dr. Ziegler saw Mr. Battersby on October 2, 2019. See id. at 8-9. Dr. Ziegler’s 14 preliminary assessment was that Mr. Battersby had Raynaud’s syndrome. See id. at 9. Dr. Ziegler 15 ordered blood work to confirm his preliminary assessment. See id. 16 Sometime between October 2 and October 18, 2019, Mr. Battersby asked Dr. Ziegler for 17 an order that Mr. Battersby be allowed an extra blanket. See id. at 15. Dr. Ziegler “verbally 18 requested” that Does 1-4 generate such an order, and Does 1-4 “did so by conveying” Dr. 19 Ziegler’s request to Nurse Edmondson. Id. The order should have been completed by Nurse 20 Edmondson, but was not. See id. 21 On October 18, 2019, Mr. Battersby had a follow-up appointment with Dr. Ziegler. See id. 22 at 9. Dr. Ziegler confirmed in that appointment that the problem was Raynaud’s syndrome.3 See 23 2 The Court means no disrespect by referring to Nurse Lien by his first name, when all other 24 Defendants are referred to by their last names. Rather, Mr. Battersby used Nurse Lien’s first name throughout the TAC, and this order follows the convention used by Mr. Battersby. 25

3 For context only, the Court notes that Raynaud’s disease is “a vascular disorder that is marked by 26 recurrent spasm of the capillaries and especially those of the fingers and toes upon exposure to cold, that is characterized by pallor, cyanosis, and redness in succession usually accompanied by 27 pain, and that in severe cases progresses to local gangrene.” See Raynaud’s disease, Merriam- 1 id. Mr. Battersby and Dr. Ziegler “discussed how [Mr. Battersby] would need to use an extra 2 blanket to combat a[] [Raynaud’s] episode whenever it might occur.” Id. Nurse Iver overheard 3 the discussion, and said that Mr. Battersby could not use an extra blanket during the day but could 4 have an extra sweatshirt. See id. Dr. Ziegler stated that, when an episode struck, Mr. Battersby 5 would need to be able to keep his entire body warm because a Raynaud’s episode can result in 6 “tissue loss or mild frostbite.” See id. Dr. Ziegler said “he’d talk to custody and hopefully come 7 to some kind of solution.” Id. Dr. Ziegler asked Does 1 and 2 to generate an order for an extra 8 blanket, and they “conveyed the order request to [Nurse] Edmondson who failed to ensure 9 communication of the order to non-medical custody staff.” Id. at 15. 10 On October 21, 2019, “Dr. Ziegler made a medical treatment order for an extra blanket to 11 combat a Raynaud’s episode.” Id. at 9. In part of the TAC, Mr. Battersby alleges that Dr. Ziegler 12 left this order “in Karen’s box,” id., and that “Nurse Karen Edmondson failed to act on this 13 information for . . . over 30 days,” id. at 10, 15. However, in a later part of the TAC, Mr. 14 Battersby alleges that Nurse Santuccio generated the treatment order for Dr. Ziegler, but Nurse 15 Santuccio neither conveyed the order to Nurse Edmondson nor disseminated it to custody staff. 16 See id. at 17. 17 At a November 6, 2019 or November 11, 2019 visit, Mr. Battersby told Dr. Ziegler he had 18 not received his extra blanket but was using a prayer blanket for warmth. See TAC, Ex. F at 2 19 (stating this occurred on November 11), TAC, Ex. B at 10 (stating this occurred on November 6). 20 Dr. Ziegler wrote a confusing order for Mr. Battersby always to be allowed his blanket. See id. at 21 16. Does 1-4 conveyed this order to Nurse Edmondson, and Dr. Ziegler relied on Nurse 22 Edmondson to convey this order to custodial staff, but she did not. See id. 23 Between October 21, 2019 and November 22, 2019, Mr. Battersby made multiple requests 24 to Correctional Defendants for an extra blanket, none of which were granted. See id. at 10, 13. 25 Between October 2, 2019 (when Raynaud’s syndrome was first suspected) and November 22, 26 2019, Correctional Defendants wrote up Mr. Battersby for being under his blankets. See id. at 10. 27 1 (Writing up an inmate appears to mean taking some sort of adverse or disciplinary action against 2 him.) 3 On November 22, 2019, Corporal Jackson said that Mr. Battersby did not have a medical 4 exemption for being under blankets or to have an extra blanket. See id. Mr. Battersby told 5 Corporal Jackson that he did, in fact, have a medical exemption for an extra blanket. See id. Mr. 6 Battersby also explained that he needed to use his medically ordered extra blanket during the day 7 for warmth. See id. To demonstrate his need for an extra blanket, Mr. Battersby “showed 8 [Corporal Jackson] [Mr. Battersby’s] feet and how they were obviously discolored and otherwise 9 affected by exposure to the cold.” TAC, Ex. F at 4. Corporal Jackson wrote up Mr. Battersby for 10 violating a rule prohibiting inmate from being under their blankets during the day. See TAC, Ex. 11 B at 10. Mr. Battersby filed grievances. See id. 12 Sometime between October 21, 2019 and November 23, 2019, Mr. Battersby informed 13 Corporal Twitchel and Correctional Officer Coleman of Mr. Battersby’s medical condition. See 14 TAC, Ex. F at 4-5. For a brief time thereafter, Corporal Twitchel and Correctional Officer 15 Coleman allowed Mr. Battersby to remain under the blankets during bed-and-dress time, without 16 punishing him. See id. 17 On November 23, 2019, Mr. Battersby filed a “sick call slip” regarding the blanket issue. 18 See TAC, Ex. B at 10. On November 24, 2019, Mr. Battersby was given an extra blanket. See id. 19 at 14. 20 On November 23, 2019, Mr. Battersby was “written up and locked down” by Corporal 21 Twitchel and “not given tier time” because he was under his blankets. See id. at 11. During his 22 interaction with Corporal Twitchel, Mr. Battersby showed Corporal Twitchel “the effect exposure 23 to cold had on [Mr. Battersby’s] feet.” TAC, Ex. F at 4. He wrote a grievance against Corporal 24 Twitchel for locking him down and ignoring his medical needs. See TAC, Ex. B at 11. 25 On November 24, 2019, Correctional Officer Coleman wrote up Mr. Battersby, shortened 26 his tier time, and gave him an undesirable tier time, for being under blankets during the day. See 27 id. at 11. 1 that he “couldn’t do a thing about” the Correctional Defendants’ failure to allow Mr. Battersby to 2 have an extra blanket, and that Nurse Iver had never been able to give a medical exemption 3 allowing an inmate to remain under the blankets during the day. See id. However, he put in a 4 request for Mr. Battersby to see Dr. Ziegler. See id. 5 On November 27, 2019, Nurse Edmondson issued an order for Mr. Battersby to have and 6 to use extra blankets. See id. at 11. Also on November 27, 2019, Sergeant Camilli spoke to Nurse 7 Edmondson regarding the October 21, 2019 order for Mr. Battersby to be given an extra blanket. 8 See id. After this conversation, Sergeant Camilli “sent out a memo to all staff” which stated that 9 Mr. Battersby was to be allowed under the blankets. See id. 10 On December 12, 2019, Mr. Battersby reviewed his medical records and saw that they had 11 been altered. Officials refused to give him a copy of the records without a court order. Id. at 12. 12 At no time did Dr. Ziegler prescribe medication for Mr. Battersby’s Raynaud’s syndrome. 13 See id. at 16-17. 14 On December 16, 2019, Mr. Battersby was transferred to the California Department of 15 Corrections and Rehabilitation. There, he was prescribed a beta-blocker that greatly improved his 16 symptoms. Id. at 12. 17 The prayer for relief requests $1.2 million in monetary damages, as well as an injunction to 18 end the bed-and-dress policy at the jail. See TAC, Ex. C at 19. 19 III. DISCUSSION 20 A. Review of Complaint 21 A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 22 seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 23 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any 24 claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b). Pro 26 se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 27 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 1 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the 2 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 3 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 4 Deliberate indifference to an inmate’s health or safety may violate the Eighth Amendment 5 or the Fourteenth Amendment. Which of those amendments applies to an inmate’s claim depends 6 on whether he was a convicted prisoner or was a pretrial detainee at the relevant time: a prisoner’s 7 claim arises under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause while a 8 pretrial detainee’s claim arises under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The two 9 amendments have different standards. 10 Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s health or safety needs violates the Eighth 11 Amendment when two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively, 12 sufficiently serious, and (2) the official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent to the inmate’s 13 health or safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). A defendant is deliberately 14 indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that 15 risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Id. at 837. The defendant must not only “be 16 aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm 17 exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If the defendant should have been aware of the 18 risk, but was not, then he has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk. 19 Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). Negligence does not violate 20 the Eighth Amendment. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2004). 21 A pretrial detainee’s claim arises under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause 22 and is governed by an objective deliberate-indifference standard rather than the subjective one that 23 applies to a prisoner’s claim.

24 [T]he elements of a pretrial detainee’s [safety or] medical care claim against an individual defendant under the due process clause of the 25 Fourteenth Amendment are: (i) the defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions under which the plaintiff was 26 confined; (ii) those conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious harm; (iii) the defendant did not take reasonable 27 available measures to abate that risk, even though a reasonable conduct obvious; and (iv) by not taking such measures, the 1 defendant caused the plaintiff’s injuries. 2 Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018). For the third element, the 3 defendant’s conduct must be objectively unreasonable, “a test that will necessarily ‘turn[] on the 4 facts and circumstances of each particular case.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Castro v. 5 County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016)). “[T]he plaintiff must ‘prove more 6 than negligence but less than subjective intent—something akin to reckless disregard.” Id. 7 (quoting Castro, 833 F.3d at 1071). 8 Mr. Battersby suggests that he was not sentenced until December of 2019. TAC at 12. He 9 thus appears to allege that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by Defendants’ 10 deliberate indifference. 11 Liberally construed, Mr. Battersby has alleged that the named Defendants were 12 deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The Court notes that it is unclear from the 13 TAC whether Raynaud’s disease puts Mr. Battersby at risk for tissue loss and mild frostbite, or 14 whether Mr. Battersby has already suffered these effects. See generally, TAC Regardless, Mr. 15 Battersby alleges that his feet “hurt” because of the Raynaud’s disease, and that he told various 16 Defendants as much. See TAC at 5. Where an untreated medical condition forces an inmate to 17 endure “unnecessary pain,” the Ninth Circuit has held that this is sufficient to meet the serious 18 medical needs standard. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-62 (9th Cir. 1992) 19 (addressing an Eighth Amendment claim), overruled in part on other grounds by WMX Techs., 20 Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). 21 Liberally construed, the TAC states a cognizable claim against the named Medical 22 Defendants. A cognizable claim is stated against Nurse Iver Lien, who allegedly did not treat Mr. 23 Battersby’s condition adequately in 2017-2018, delayed sending Mr. Battersby to a doctor, and 24 acceded in 2019 to a correctional staff rule that was contrary to the inmate’s medical need (i.e., the 25 rule that did not allow extra blankets for daytime use). A cognizable claim is stated against Dr. 26 Ziegler, who allegedly failed to take the steps necessary to ensure that Mr. Battersby (a) received 27 the extra blanket and (b) would be permitted to use blankets for warmth during Raynaud’s 1 the fact that he was having problems getting and using blankets. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 2 1091, 1097 (9th Cir. 2006) (doctor’s failure to provide treatment for administrative reasons would 3 be sufficient to show a genuine issue of material fact as to deliberate indifference). A cognizable 4 claim also is stated against Dr. Ziegler for his failure to prescribe medication for Mr. Battersby. A 5 cognizable claim is stated against Nurses Edmondson and Santuccio, who allegedly failed to 6 transmit Dr. Ziegler’s medical order on several occasions, thus delaying the implementation of 7 that order. 8 Liberally construed, the TAC states a cognizable claim against the Correctional 9 Defendants. A cognizable claim is stated against Corporal Jackson, Corporal Twitchel, Corporal 10 Freese, and C.O. Coleman, who allegedly took disciplinary measures against Mr. Battersby rather 11 than allow him (a) to use his medically ordered extra blanket and (b) to be under blankets during 12 the day to address his Raynaud’s episodes. See Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th 13 Cir. 1999) (allegation that correctional officer ignored the instructions of a treating physician to 14 provide medication to prisoner is sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference). A 15 cognizable claim is stated against Captain Christian, who allegedly made the bed-and-dress rule 16 that precluded Mr. Battersby from being under blankets during the day that were needed to address 17 his Raynaud’s episodes. 18 Mr. Battersby requests an injunction against the bed-and-dress rule at the jail as well as 19 damages. When an inmate is released from jail or prison or transferred to another facility and 20 there is no reasonable expectation nor demonstrated probability that he will again be subjected to 21 the conditions from which he seeks injunctive relief, the claims for injunctive should be dismissed 22 as moot. Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (9th Cir. 1995). Having been sent to prison to 23 serve his sentence, there is no reasonable expectation or demonstrated probability that Mr. 24 Battersby will again spend time in the Humboldt County Correctional Facility where the 25 challenged rule exists. Although he urges that he wants an injunction in the event he is returned to 26 Humboldt County Correctional Facility, TAC at 15, Mr. Battersby has not shown that this is 27 likely. Therefore, the request for an injunction is dismissed because that issue became moot upon 1 B. Plaintiff’s Discovery-Related Motions 2 Mr. Battersby asked the Court to compel Defendants to produce a portion of a medical 3 manual. See Docket Nos. 80, 84. He represented that Defendants have expressed their 4 willingness to produce a copy of the relevant portion of the manual, but have failed to do so 5 despite repeated reminders. See id. Defendants have not opposed this motion. See generally, 6 Docket. The Court GRANTS this motion to compel. 7 Mr. Battersby asked for an order compelling Defendants to preserve body camera footage. 8 See Docket No. 85. Defendants opposed such an order as unnecessary, because they already have 9 preserved relevant footage. See Docket No. 89. Indeed, the Court notes that Defendants 10 previously have produced such footage for Mr. Battersby. See Docket Nos. 65, 79. A 11 preservation order thus appears unnecessary, and Mr. Battersby’s motion is DENIED. 12 Mr. Battersby filed a confusing motion to compel, which indicated that materials had been 13 produced but asked the Court to find Defendants’ objections were overbroad. See Docket No. 86. 14 Defendants opposed Mr. Battersby’s motion, explaining that they produced the materials in 15 question, and stated objections to preserve their rights. See Docket No. 89. As the materials at 16 issue have been produced, there is nothing to compel and Mr. Battersby’s motion is DENIED. 17 Mr. Battersby filed a discovery request with the Court rather than, or in addition to, 18 sending it to Defendants. See Docket No. 87. Defendants have responded to this request. See 19 Docket No. 91. Because it appears to have been filed in error, the Clerk shall terminate the motion 20 appearing at Docket Number 87. 21 IV. CONCLUSION 22 1. Mr. Battersby’s first discovery-related motion is GRANTED. The Court orders 23 Defendants to provide Mr. Battersby with the relevant portion of the medical manual. See Docket 24 No. 80. All other discovery-related motions are DENIED for the reasons given above. 25 2. The TAC, liberally construed, states a cognizable claim for monetary damages 26 against Correctional Defendants and the named Medical Defendants under the Fourteenth 27 Amendment for deliberate indifference to medical needs. 1 were served either with the original complaint or the SAC, and counsel for Defendants has 2 appeared in this action. See Docket Nos. 14-18, 24-25, 67-68. Service thus has been effected 3 upon these Defendants. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 5-1(g). 4 4. The Clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without 5 prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the FAC, and a copy of all the documents in the case 6 file upon Nurse Samantha Santuccio, who apparently works at the Humboldt County Correctional 7 Facility at 826 Fourth Street, Eureka, CA 95501. 8 5. After service has been effected upon Nurse Santuccio, the Court will establish a 9 briefing schedule for dispositive motions. 10 6. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on defense counsel 11 by mailing a true copy of the document to the appropriate Defendant’s counsel. The Court may 12 disregard any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until a 13 defendant’s counsel has been designated, Plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly 14 to the defendant, but once a defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to 15 counsel rather than directly to the party. 16 7. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 17 No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is 18 required before the parties may conduct discovery. 19 8. Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly keep the 20 Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely 21 fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant 22 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 9. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this 2 case on any document he submits to the Court for consideration in this case. 3 This order disposes of Docket Nos. 80, 81, and 84-87. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: September 29, 2023 8 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27