Spillard v. Hoffman

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 25, 2024
• Docket: 4:19-cv-01407
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EVERETT L SPILLARD, Case No. 19-cv-01407-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT AND 9 v. REOPENING ACTION; SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 10 NURSE IVERS, et al., Re: ECF Nos. 52, 53 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate housed at California Medical Facility, filed the instant pro se civil 14 rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons set forth below, the Court VACATES the 15 September 22, 2021 judgment, ECF No. 53, and VACATES the portion of the Court’s September 16 22, 2021 Order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants; REOPENS this action, and 17 sets a briefing schedule. 18 DISCUSSION 19 Plaintiff brought suit against Humboldt County Jail nurse Iver Lien and doctor Michael 20 Burleson (“Defendants”), alleging that (1) they gave him psychiatric medication, specifically 21 nortriptyline, without his knowledge, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment’s due process 22 right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, and (2) during Plaintiff’s first month at Humboldt 23 County Jail, they failed to give Plaintiff metformin to treat his diabetes, in violation of the Eighth 24 Amendment’s prohibition on deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. ECF 25 Nos. 24, 25, 45. On December 28, 2020, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of 26 Defendants on the deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim. ECF No. 45. On 27 September 22, 2021, 1 the Fourteenth Amendment claim on the grounds that Defendants were entitled to qualified 2 immunity, and entered judgment in favor of Defendants. ECF Nos. 52, 53. 3 On August 4, 2023, the Ninth Circuit found that this Court erred in granting summary 4 judgment in favor of Defendants on the basis of qualified immunity because Defendants are 5 privately employed medical providers and the defense of qualified immunity is therefore 6 categorically unavailable to them. ECF No. 58 at 1. The Ninth Circuit also rejected Defendants’ 7 alternative bases for affirming the grant of summary judgment:

8 Contrary to [Defendants’] position, the due process rights “to be free from unjustified intrusions to the body, to refuse unwanted medical 9 treatment and to receive sufficient information to exercise these rights intelligently,” Benson v. Terhune, 304 F.3d 874, 884 (9th Cir. 2002) 10 (citations omitted), are not categorically limited to antipsychotic drugs, see id. at 880–81, or situations where the drug at issue is 11 administered for mental health reasons, id. at 877–78, 884; see also Johnson v. Meltzer, 134 F.3d 1393, 1397 (9th Cir. 1998) (applying 12 informed consent in the context of U-74,006F, an experimental drug “typically used to treat patients with severe head injuries to control 13 intracranial pressure”). The record shows that nortriptyline is “pharmacologically categorized as an antidepressant medication,” 14 and had the potential for serious side effects. Factual questions also remain as to whether Spillard’s use of the drug was involuntary or 15 unwanted, as Spillard was not aware that the medication he was taking was nortriptyline until he was transferred out of Humboldt County 16 Jail. Therefore, Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (1992), is not categorically inapplicable to the circumstances here. When the facts 17 are viewed in the light favorable to Spillard, as they must be at this stage, this is a case of unwanted administration of medication to 18 which Riggins and its progeny applies. Under Riggins, Defendants- Appellees have not shown as a matter of law that their administration 19 of nortriptyline was (1) medically appropriate and (2) justified by the circumstances. Id. at 135. 20 ECF No. 58 at 2-3. 21 Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s August 4, 2023 order, this Court now orders as follows: 22 The Court VACATES the September 22, 2021 judgment, ECF No. 53, and VACATES the portion 23 of the Court’s September 22, 2021 Order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, 24 ECF No. 52. The Clerk is directed to REOPEN this action. 25 The claim remaining in this action is whether Defendants’ administration of nortriptyline 26 without Plaintiff’s consent violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court sets the following 27 briefing schedule to address this claim. Within ninety-one (91) days of the date of this order, 1 Defendants shall file a dispositive motion addressing this claim. The dispositive motion should 2 also address whether, under Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127, 135 (1992), Defendants’ 3 administration of nortriptyline was (1) medically appropriate and (2) justified by the 4 circumstances. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed and served no later 5 than twenty-eight (28) days from the date the dispositive motion is filed. Defendants shall file a 6 reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. The parties may 7 supplement the record with any evidence needed to support their briefs. The motion shall be 8 deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion. 9 If Defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, 10 Defendants must so inform the Court prior to the date the dispositive motion is due. 11 The Court reopens discovery. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal 12 Rules of Civil Procedure. 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows. 15 1. The Court VACATES the September 22, 2021 judgment, ECF No. 53, and 16 VACATES the portion of the Court’s September 22, 2021 Order granting summary judgment in 17 favor of Defendants, ECF No. 52. 18 2. The Clerk is directed to REOPEN this action. 19 3. Within ninety-one (91) days of the date of this order, Defendants shall file a 20 dispositive motion addressing the remaining Fourteenth Amendment claim identified above. The 21 dispositive motion should also address whether, under Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127, 135 22 (1992), Defendants’ administration of nortriptyline was (1) medically appropriate and (2) justified 23 by the circumstances. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed and served no 24 later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date the dispositive motion is filed. Defendants shall 25 file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. The motion 26 shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the 27 motion. 1 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties may supplement the record with any evidence 2 || needed to support their briefs. 3 5. If Defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary 4 || judgment, Defendants must so inform the Court prior to the date the dispositive motion is due. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 || Dated: January 25, 2024 7 JON S. TIGAR 8 nited States District Judge 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28