Lambert v. Soto
3:10-cv-01976
S.D. Cal.Mar 19, 2012Background
- Lambert, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, sued Nurse Villalobos, Officer Soto, and an unnamed physician under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Magistrate Judge Major recommended granting dismissals without prejudice and with leave to amend, and denying injunctive relief.
- Alleged incident occurred April 21, 2009: Villalobos allegedly refused treatment, documented injuries, and stated Lambert should have fought with staff.
- Lambert was later evaluated May 12, 2009 by an unnamed physician; x-rays ordered, pain medication prescribed; Lambert remained with untreated or inadequately treated injuries prior to further incidents.
- Lambert alleged continued pain and subsequent injury from a bunk fall on May 14, 2009, intensifying medical issues; the complaint lacked specific factual links tying Defendants' conduct to the later injury.
- The court adopted the R&R, granting dismissal of Lambert’s deliberate-indifference claim against Villalobos and Soto with leave to amend, denied injunctive relief, and denied qualified-immunity dismissal without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lambert pled a serious medical need | Lambert contends his injuries were serious and warranted treatment. | Villalobos and Soto argue the injuries were not shown as a serious medical need; disagreement in medical judgment not enough. | Lambert failed to show a serious medical need; dismissal affirmed with leave to amend. |
| Whether Lambert pled deliberate indifference (objective prong) | Lambert asserts injuries were serious and required treatment; omissions show seriousness. | Defendants assert no objective evidence of a serious medical need or that treatment was warranted. | Objective prong not met; no sufficiently serious condition alleged; dismissal with leave to amend. |
| Whether Lambert pled deliberate indifference (subjective prong) | Defendants knew or should have known failure to treat would cause harm. | No evidence of awareness of an excessive risk or intent to disregard; mere disagreement with treatment is not indifference. | Subjective prong not shown; dismissal with leave to amend. |
| Whether the claims against Villalobos and Soto should be dismissed with prejudice or with leave to amend | Lambert sought to proceed with amendments to cure deficiencies. | No prejudice if defects can be cured; leave to amend appropriate. | Dismissal with leave to amend granted. |
| Whether Lambert’s request for injunctive relief remains viable | Plaintiff seeks ongoing injunctive relief to prevent unconstitutional medical practices. | Injunctive relief unwarranted given lack of viable constitutional violation. | Injunctive relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. Supreme Court 1976) (deliberate indifference standard for serious medical needs)
- McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1992) (serious medical need and subjective/objective prong analysis)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (U.S. Supreme Court 1988) (right to adequate medical care in prisons; dependency on officials)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc; standard for serious medical need and treatment delay)
- Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330 (9th Cir. 1996) (difference of opinion in medical care does not equal deliberate indifference)
- Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240 (9th Cir. 1989) (difference of opinion about treatment insufficient for deliberate indifference)
- Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 370 (U.S. Supreme Court 1976) (requirement linking a specific defendant's actions to the harm)