Moore v. Akabike

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued Findings and Recommendations addressing Defendant Dr. Nkiruka Akabike/Ndu’s motion for summary judgment in a prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court assumed that Plaintiff’s foot condition constituted a serious medical need but recommended granting summary judgment because the record did not show deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The document also addresses Plaintiff’s claims concerning orthotics, orthopedic shoes, and a light-duty work restriction.

Holdings

1. Defendant was not deliberately indifferent because the undisputed facts show Plaintiff did not disclose foot pain to Defendant until March 2022, after which Defendant ordered therapeutic shoes, and Plaintiff failed to provide evidence that Defendant's chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances.
2. No evidence shows Defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Plaintiff's health regarding the light-duty chrono request, as Plaintiff never formally requested one and the record shows only a request for orthotics.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendant's denial of orthotics and a light-duty work chrono constituted deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment.
2. Whether Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the § 1983 medical deliberate indifference claim.

Disposition

affirmed