Heilman v. Cook
3:14-cv-01412
S.D. Cal.May 23, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Thomas Heilman, an RJD inmate, alleges he was beaten by correctional officers on May 9, 2013 and thereafter received inadequate medical care from prison medical staff, producing a left-sided pneumothorax that later required thoracotomy and treatment for infection.
- Defendants are medical providers at RJD: Dr. Jessica Cook (TTA), RN David Donoghue (CTC), and Dr. Robert J. Davis (CTC). Plaintiff claims Cook and Davis falsified records to conceal officer misconduct and that medical staff were deliberately indifferent to his serious injury.
- Shortly after the incident, staff documented external redness and abrasions; psychiatry/CTC staff described Heilman as agitated and uncooperative. Crepitus was noted and chest x‑rays were ordered; Plaintiff was placed on 24-hour one‑to‑one monitoring in the CTC and later discharged from the CTC on May 13.
- Radiology on May 16 reported a left 30–40% pneumothorax; Plaintiff was hospitalized and underwent thoracotomy on May 20 and subsequent care for a surgical-site infection.
- Procedurally, parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court considered Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against each medical defendant, Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims (and related First Amendment retaliation theory), and qualified-immunity arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cook acted with Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference | Cook examined/cleared Heilman and concealed/failed to treat serious injuries; falsified records ("spontaneous" pneumothorax) | Cook did not necessarily examine; relied on RN Lacorum’s findings; no evidence she knowingly disregarded serious risk | Denied summary judgment for Cook (genuine dispute whether she examined/was aware; factual dispute precludes ruling) |
| Whether Donoghue acted with Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference | Denied/ delayed care; fabricated justifications; ignored abnormal breath sounds | Sent Heilman to TTA for medical clearance and x‑ray; marked he was uncooperative; claims mark of "ABNORMAL BREATH SOUNDS" was mistaken | Denied summary judgment for Donoghue (dispute over checked "abnormal breath sounds" creates triable issue) |
| Whether Davis acted with Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference | Ignored breathing complaints; placed Heilman in CTC instead of providing emergency care; part of conspiracy | Physically and mentally examined Heilman, took vitals (normal), noted crepitus and ordered x-rays; no signs of respiratory distress; prescribed monitoring | Granted summary judgment for Davis on Eighth Amendment (no deliberate indifference shown) |
| Whether Cook/Davis violated Fourteenth (and First) Amendment rights via falsification/retaliation | Alleged falsification of records to conceal assault and to involuntarily admit Heilman to CTC; retaliation for grievances | Short-term CTC observation does not implicate protected liberty; no evidence of document falsification or causal link to grievances | Granted summary judgment for Cook and Davis on due-process and retaliation claims (no protected liberty interest shown; no admissible evidence of falsification/causation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (reasonable jury standard; evidence inferences)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference standard)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment medical care principles)
- Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (prisoner medical need analysis)
- McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (deliberate indifference framework)
- Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085 (difference of opinion ≠ deliberate indifference)
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (Eighth Amendment medical claims)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (liberty interest analysis for prison conditions)
- Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750 (atypical and significant hardship test)
- Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (involuntary transfer to mental hospital implicates liberty)
- Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108 (prisoner grievance/retaliation law)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (elements of retaliation claim)