David Wesley Birrell, aka Bella-Christina Birrell v. Michele DiTomas, et al.

Summary

The document is an order and findings and recommendations in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by a California state prisoner against prison medical and correctional officials. The court addresses an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim arising from the temporary removal of the plaintiff’s CPAP machine during the COVID-19 pandemic and concludes that defendants’ motion for summary judgment should be granted. The court also directs the Clerk to file the plaintiff’s complete deposition transcript on the public docket.

Holdings

1. Even assuming for purposes of the motion that plaintiff's sleep apnea constituted a serious medical need, the record did not show that any defendant acted with deliberate indifference by temporarily suspending CPAP access during the COVID-19 outbreak.
2. DiTomas was entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff failed to show that DiTomas's decision to suspend CPAP access was medically unacceptable under the circumstances or made in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff's health.
3. Liu was entitled to summary judgment because she did not make the decision to suspend CPAP access and plaintiff failed to show that Liu knew the implementation of the medical directive created a substantial risk of serious harm.
4. Footman was entitled to summary judgment because she reasonably relied on the judgments and directive of medical professionals when implementing the CPAP suspension and plaintiff presented no evidence that Footman had medical expertise or personal knowledge of plaintiff's medical condition.
5. The defendants appeared entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff could not show a clearly established right to continued CPAP use during a prison-wide COVID-19 outbreak after individualized medical professionals determined that her need did not outweigh the contagion risk.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants were deliberately indifferent under the Eighth Amendment to a serious medical need by temporarily suspending plaintiff's CPAP access during a COVID-19 outbreak.
2. Whether defendant DiTomas's medical assessment and participation in the CPAP suspension constituted deliberate indifference.
3. Whether defendant Liu was deliberately indifferent by communicating and implementing the medical decision without personally making the suspension decision.
4. Whether defendant Footman was deliberately indifferent by removing the CPAP power cord in reliance on medical professionals' directive.
5. Whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

Disposition

other