(PC) Wicklund v. Queen of the Valley Medical Center, 2:10-cv-02161

Plaintiff Wicklund, a state prisoner, sues Queen of the Valley Medical Center and NorthBay under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Courts granted extensions; plaintiff’s opposition was deemed timely after initially being treated as late.
Court applies summary judgment standard and considers verified complaint where appropriate.
Plaintiff alleges policies allowing unqualified surgeons and experimental/unnecessary surgery caused his injuries from May 2009 angioplasty and September 2009 pacemaker.
Defendants’ experts contend the care was medically appropriate and within standard of care, and there were no deliberate indifference allegations supported by evidence.
Court recommends granting defendants’ summary judgment, declines state-law claims, and denies plaintiff’s request for counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants acted under color of state law for §1983 liability.	Wicklund argues state-actor involvement through hospital policy.	Defendants contend they acted under color of state law.	Assumed state actors for purposes of analysis.
Whether May 2009 angioplasty by Queen of the Valley violated the Eighth Amendment.	Treatment was inappropriate; policy allowed unqualified surgeons.	Treatment was medically appropriate within standard of care.	No deliberate indifference; summary judgment for Queen of the Valley.
Whether Sept. 2009 defibrillator implantation at NorthBay violated the Eighth Amendment.	Implantation was experimental or unnecessary and not fully consented.	Implantation was medically necessary with informed consent.	No deliberate indifference; summary judgment for NorthBay.
Whether defendants’ policies were the moving force behind any constitutional violation.	Policies permitted improper surgeries.	No policy or custom caused violation.	No moving-force liability; defendants granted summary judgment.
Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.	State-law malpractice claims remain.	Court should dismiss/state claims.	Declines to exercise jurisdiction; dismisses/state claims implied.

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (establishes Eighth Amendment medical-deliberate indifference standard)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (two-prong test for deliberate indifference)
McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1992) (serious medical need and response must show deliberate indifference)
Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330 (9th Cir. 1996) (differences of opinion on treatment alone insufficient for Eighth Amendment claim)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment shifting burden to nonmovant with evidentiary support)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (standard for genuine disputes of material fact in summary judgment)