Summary
The document contains findings and recommendations by a United States magistrate judge in a prisoner civil-rights action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment. The magistrate judge recommends denying the defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss because the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that his mobility devices were confiscated without adequate evaluation and that his continuing pain and mobility problems were disregarded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the fourth amended complaint plausibly alleged an objectively serious medical need for purposes of an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim.
- Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that Taber knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Shavers's health and safety by removing and failing to return his prescribed mobility devices.
- Whether factual disputes concerning the medical justification for removing the devices could be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
Holdings
- The complaint sufficiently alleged an objectively serious medical condition because Shavers's mobility problems and knee pain were significant, caused chronic and substantial pain, and affected his daily activities.
- The complaint sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference because Taber allegedly removed permanently prescribed mobility devices without an evaluation, relied on hearsay concerning Shavers's mobility, knew of his continuing pain and difficulty moving, and did not provide adequate follow-up treatment or return the devices.
- The defendant's arguments that the exhibits established a medical justification for removing the devices and that Shavers could not prove deliberate indifference could not be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
Key quotations
“To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”” (at 2)
“Courts in Ninth Circuit employ a two-part test when analyzing deliberate indifference claims. The plaintiff must satisfy “both an objective standard—that the deprivation was serious enough to constitute cruel and unusual punishment—and a subjective standard—deliberate indifference.”” (at 4)
“The facts, as pled, show that defendant purposefully took away plaintiff’s permanently prescribed mobility devices without first conducting an evaluation, basing her decision on hearsay from a correctional officer.” (at 5)
“To the extent defendant argues that plaintiff cannot prove his allegations of deliberate indifference, that is an issue for summary judgment or trial and cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss.” (at 6)
Factual background
While incarcerated at High Desert State Prison, Shavers had been prescribed a cane, mobility-impaired vest, knee braces, and other mobility devices, described in his records as permanent. After a correctional officer reported seeing Shavers walk and briefly jog without his cane, Taber discontinued the prescribed equipment without first conducting an evaluation. Shavers alleged that he continued to experience knee, hip, and back pain, had difficulty moving and responding to alarms, and was not provided meaningful follow-up treatment or a return of the equipment.
Procedural history
Shavers filed a fourth amended complaint alleging that physician Taber confiscated his cane and mobility vest without a meaningful medical evaluation and failed to return them despite his continuing pain and mobility problems. Taber moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the allegations reflected only a disagreement over medical treatment and did not establish an objectively serious medical need or subjective deliberate indifference. The magistrate judge recommended that the motion be denied and advised the parties of their right to object under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).