Desantiago v. Oh, 3:08-cv-01882

Plaintiff Edwardo DeSantiago, a state prisoner at CAL, sues nurse Marquez and unserved defendant Oh under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Southern District of California.
Plaintiff alleges Dec. 10, 2007 ear lavage by Marquez caused left ear drum rupture and enduring injury.
Marquez examined Plaintiff on Dec. 5 and Dec. 10, 2007, prescribed ear drops, advised lavage, and instructed to return in 72 hours.
Plaintiff contends Marquez ignored pain during the lavage and allegedly called him a “big baby,” allegedly leading to further injury.
Plaintiff later sees other clinicians; Dec. 19, 2007 ENT referral finds perforated left tympanic membrane with infection; May 2008 shows permanent damage.
Court grants Marquez’s summary judgment on Eighth Amendment claim, declines supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, and orders Plaintiff to show cause why Oh’s claims should not be dismissed for want of prosecution; Oh has not been served.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard applied	Desantiño alleges Marquez ignored pain and continued lavage, causing injury	Marquez treated and consulted with Dr. Oh; procedure can cause discomfort but not deliberate indifference	Marquez not deliberately indifferent; no triable issue on objective/subjective components
Were Plaintiff's medical needs objectively serious and Defendant's conduct deliberately indifferent?	Left ear injury shows serious medical need and disregard of pain	Initial exam showed cerumen, no serious need; expert supports standard of care; pain during lavage is not proof of indifference	No substantial evidence of objective seriousness at initial exam; no deliberate indifference shown
Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims	State-law claims arise from same facts	Judicial economy favors dismissal of state-law claims if federal claims eliminated	Court declines supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses state-law claims without prejudice

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment medical care standard)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard requires knowledge and disregard of substantial risk)
Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2002) (objective/prong and subjective prong for Eighth Amendment claim)
Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240 (9th Cir. 1989) (difference of opinion on treatment alone not deliberate indifference)
McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1992) (deliberate indifference requires more than mere negligence; delay can cause harm)
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970) (summary judgment standards; burden on moving party; credibility not weighed at this stage)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting; burden on movant to show absence of genuine issue)