United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Lynn Winmill Chief U.S. District Court Judge.
Court has before it defendants' motion for summary
judgment and plaintiff's motion to amend complaint. The
motions are fully briefed and at issue. For the reasons
explained below, the Court will deny the motion to amend and
grant the motion for summary judgment.
Workman is a prisoner incarcerated at Idaho State
Correctional Center (“ISCC”). He has sued several
prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that
they were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs as a
alleges that, when he arrived at ISCC in January of 2015,
medical providers provided a different brand of insulin than
the brand he had been successfully using (Navalog). He
alleges that this new brand of insulin did not work as
effectively as Navalog and, as a result, caused him to suffer
from seizures. The medical staff, Workman alleges, failed to
treat those seizures and refused to refer him to an outside
seizure specialist for treatment. Workman also alleges that
he told prison officials when he entered the institution that
he had a serious blood infection - Methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) - but that it went untreated,
and that he “almost died” from the lack of
treatment. See Complaint (Dkt. No. 3) at pg. 17.
March 15, 2016, the Court entered an Initial Review Order
(IRO) dismissing some defendants and some claims, but
allowing the lawsuit to proceed “against those
defendants who allegedly (1) personally participated in
[Workman's] medical treatment for his diabetes and who
exhibited deliberate indifference to [Workman's] health,
or (2) reviewed his complaints about the medical treatment
for his diabetes and had the responsibility to remedy the
allegedly inadequate care, yet failed to do so.”
See IRO (Dkt. No. 9) at pg. 17. The IRO gave Workman
the opportunity to amend his complaint if he found facts
sufficient to support a claim on which he was not allowed to
proceed. Id. at pg. 20.
month after the IRO was filed, Workman filed an
“Amended Complaint” that sought to add claims
against two defendants who had been dismissed in the IRO.
See Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 17). The Court
issued a second IRO, finding the claims in the Amended
Complaint to be too vague under the standard set by
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). The Court
stated that it was dismissing the Amended Complaint
“because it fails to state a plausible claim for
relief, ” and that the initial Complaint “remains
the operative complaint in this case.” See Order
(Dkt. No. 25) at pp. 3, 6.
March 8, 2017, the Court entered a Scheduling Order that
directed the parties to disclose all relevant information and
documents by April 8, 2017, to file any motions to amend by
June 8, 2017, to complete all discovery by September 8, 2017,
and to file dispositive motions by October 8, 2017. See
Scheduling Order (Dkt. Ord. 40).
deadlines for motions to amend and discovery passed, and
Workman never filed a motion to amend. On October 4, 2017,
the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Workman
sought, and obtained, a two-month continuance to file a
response brief to the motion for summary judgment. He filed
that response on January 24, 2018, and also filed on the same
day a motion for leave to amend his complaint.
reviewing the applicable legal standards, the Court will
evaluate first the motion to amend and will then turn to the
motion for summary judgment.
42 U.S.C. § 1983, to maintain an Eighth Amendment claim
based on prison medical treatment, an inmate must show
“deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104
(1976). In the Ninth Circuit, the test for deliberate
indifference consists of two parts. Jett v. Penner,
439 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2006). First, the
plaintiff must show a “serious medical need” by
demonstrating that “failure to treat a prisoner's
condition could result in further significant injury or the
unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.”
Id. at 1096. Second, the plaintiff must show the
defendant's response to the need was deliberately
indifferent. Id. at 1060.
deliberate indifference requirement is satisfied by showing
(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a
prisoner's pain or possible medical need and (b) harm
caused by the indifference. Id. Indifference
“may appear when prison officials deny, delay or
intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be
shown by the way in which prison physicians provide medical
care.” Id. Yet, an “inadvertent [or
negligent] failure ...