Remund v. Zamudio
3:16-cv-00426
S.D. Cal.May 31, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Eugene Remund, a state prisoner, alleges dizziness, nausea, fainting, and fatigue after pacemaker setting changes by prison physicians.
- Dr. Fernando Zamudio adjusted the pacemaker several times; each time he told Remund to “give it time to adjust” or that he would “feel better.”
- Remund alleges the adjustments were made “for no reason at all” and that the doctors acted with “total disregard” for his wellbeing.
- Remund sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming deliberate indifference to a serious medical need; the doctor moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- The court accepted that Remund had a serious medical need but examined whether the complaint adequately pleaded the requisite subjective intent (deliberate indifference).
- Remund had previously amended twice after earlier dismissals for insufficient deliberate-indifference allegations; the judge declined further leave to amend as futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint pleads deliberate indifference to a serious medical need | Remund: doctors disregarded his complaints and changed settings without justification, showing total disregard | Zamudio: adjustments were made without knowledge they would harm Remund and doctor expressed concern and reassurance; allegations are conclusory | The complaint fails to plead the mental state required for deliberate indifference (no allegation of knowledge of an excessive risk) |
| Whether allegations against Dr. Holt and John Does suffice | Remund: Holt and Zamudio jointly adjusted settings with disregard; John Does participated | Defendants: no factual allegations about John Does; Holt merely implanted a working pacemaker and was not adequately served | Claims against Holt and John Does dismissed for lack of factual pleading; separate basis to dismiss Holt for failure to serve |
| Whether the case should be dismissed with leave to amend | Remund: previously given opportunities to amend and attempted to add facts | Court/Defendant: plaintiff already had two chances and failed to cure the pleading defect | Dismissal recommended without further leave to amend as amendment appears futile |
| Whether medical malpractice suffices for a § 1983 claim | Remund: alleges disregard and poor treatment | Defendants: conduct at most negligence or medical disagreement | Medical malpractice/gross negligence insufficient; § 1983 requires deliberate indifference (akin to criminal recklessness) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires factual enhancement beyond conclusory allegations)
- Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2016) (court must accept factual allegations as true on motion to dismiss)
- Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2014) (elements of Eighth Amendment medical claim: serious medical need and deliberate indifference)
- Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1990) (isolated neglect or malpractice does not establish deliberate indifference)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (medical malpractice does not automatically rise to Eighth Amendment violation)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires knowing disregard of an excessive risk)
- Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2016) (plaintiff must show chosen treatment was medically unacceptable and defendant consciously disregarded an excessive risk)
- James v. Giles, 221 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2000) (pro se plaintiffs entitled to leave to amend unless amendment would be futile)