`
`
`
`APPENDIX
`
`
`Zoned
`
`es
`
` ry
`ray
`
`act
`A
`
`
`

`

`NOT FOR PUBLICATION
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`FILED
`
`DEC 15 2023
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
`JOSE LUIS GARCIA,
`
`No. 22-16840
`
`Plaintiff-Appel lant,
`
`D.C. No. 3:21-cv-09048-JD
`
`V.
`
`KYEONG PARK,
`
`Defendant-Appellee.
`
`MEMORANDUM*
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of California
`James Donato, District Judge, Presiding
`
`Submitted December 12, 2023**
`
`Before:
`
`WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges
`
`California state prisoner Jose Luis Garcia appeals pro se from the district
`
`court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
`
`indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
`
`This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
`except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
`
`**
`The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
`without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
`
`

`

`2004). We affirm.
`
`The district court properly granted summary judgment because Garcia failed
`
`to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately
`
`indifferent in treating Garcia’s foot issues. See id. at 1057-60 (prison officials act
`
`with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard a risk to the
`
`prisoner’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or difference of opinion
`
`concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
`
`AFFIRMED.
`
`2
`
`22-16840
`
`

`

`APPENDIX
`
`B
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09048-JD Document 26 Filed 10/31/22 Page 1 of 8
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`JOSE LUIS GARCIA,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`KYEONG PARK,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2l-cv-09048-JD
`
`ORDER RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`Re: Dkt. No. 17
`
`Jose Garcia, a state prisoner acting pro se, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §
`
`1983. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Park, a doctor at plaintiff s prison and the sole defendant in this
`
`case, improperly treated plaintiff s toe and foot injuries. Defendant filed a motion for summary
`
`judgment, plaintiff filed an opposition and defendant filed a reply. Summary judgment is granted
`
`for Dr. Park.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`1 2 3 4
`
`5 6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`I |
`(31
`13
`O 14
`to O5 ts
`5
`E
`. 0} 3J
`'E tE
`3 o
`Z 18
`
`o
`"C
`
`22
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`The salient facts are undisputed. On December 8, 2020, plaintiff was injured when a heavy
`
`cart loaded with 300 dinner trays fell onto his right foot. Complaint (“Compl.”) at 3. Plaintiffs
`
`right foot was bleeding, and a nail was almost detached from his large toe. Id. at 4. That same
`
`day plaintiff was admitted to Natividad Hospital and treated for a laceration on his right large toe.
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment (“M.SJ”), Park Deck ^ 5; Cho Deck, Deposition at 17-18. An x-
`
`ray taken at the hospital indicated that plaintiff did not suffer any fractures. Park Deck, Ex. A.
`
`On December 9, 2020, Dr. Park treated plainti ff for the toe injury and a laceration on his
`
`ear. Park Deck 6. Plaintiff already had a bottom bunk and had been provided crutches and a
`
`prescription for acetaminophen-codeine (Tylenol 3) and ibuprofen. Id.-, Deposition at 23, 28-30.
`
`Dr. Park did not discontinue the crutches or the medications. Id. Deposition at 29-30.
`
`SER 064
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09048-JD Document 26 Filed 10/31/22 Page 2 of 8
`
`Dr. Park treated plaintiff again on December 24, 2020. Park Deck U 7; Deposition at 32-
`
`33. Plaintiff complained of bleeding and pain in his right foot and toe and stated that the Tylenol
`
`3 was not helping with his pain. Id.\ Deposition at 33. Plaintiff also stated that he was neither
`
`improving nor worsening. Park Decl. ^ 7, Ex. C. Dr. Park conducted an examination and
`
`discovered dried blood on plaintiff s right toe and that his toenail had fallen off. Id. There
`
`was
`scant adherent pus and swelling, but the nerves and blood vessels were still intact. Id. Plaintiff
`
`also had redness and pain with the application of light touch. Id. Dr. Park ordered 160 mg tabs of
`
`sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim, an antibiotic, to be taken for ten days. Id.
`
`Dr. Park treated plaintiff on January 6, 2021. Park Deck U 8; Deposition at 35-36.
`
`2 3 4 5
`
`6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`Plaintiff stated that he needed to be seen urgently and was experienc ing a lot of pain. Park Deck
`
`8, Ex. D; Deposition at 36. Dr. Park noted it was unusual that plaintiff s pain had moved from his
`
`toe to his foot and ankle. Park Deck ^ 8, Ex. D. Plaintiffs toe infection was no longer present,
`
`and this appointment concerned a completely different set of symptoms. Id. Plaintiff had a good
`
`range of motion in his foot and ankle, there was tenderness to palpation along the medial foot and
`
`ankle and no obvious deformity. The nerves and blood vessels were still intact. Plaintiff had pain
`
`with internal rotation, plantar flexion and some tenderness along the Achilles tendon. He was able
`
`to bear weight, walk and go up and down stairs without problems. The degree of pain plaintiff
`
`described was inconsistent with Dr. Park’s findings. Id. Dr. Park ordered an ankle brace that
`
`12
`13
`
`.5
`I |
`O (O
`~ ‘ii
`° o
`14
`to ■ O
`b .1 . 15
`
`|q 16
`T3 E
`<U V
`.ti .c
`e ■£
`3 o
`Z 18
`
`17
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`plaintiff received two days later. Id.\ Deposition at 23, 36-37.
`
`Plaintiff was next seen by Dr. Park on February 12, 2021. Park Deck ^ 9, Ex. E. Plaintiff
`
`stated that when using the ankle brace, he felt pressure and pain in his right inner ankle and right
`
`toe. Plaintiff requested an MRI and a referral to a specialist. Id. During the physical examination.
`
`Dr. Park found that plaintiff had a good range of motion in his ankle and foot, no redness, no focal
`
`tenderness, no swelling and intact motor and sensor. Plaintiff reported that he was doing better,
`
`and Dr. Park found that there had been at least a 75% to 100% improvement since the examination
`
`one month prior. Based on these findings, Dr. Park did not believe that an MRI or referral to
`
`specialist was medically necessary. Plaintiff was instructed to continue using the ankle brace and
`
`avoid strenuous exercise, running and sports but to engage in regular exercise and eat a proper diet
`2
`
`SER 065
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09048-JD Document 26 Filed 10/31/22 Page 3 of 8
`
`for weight management. Id.
`
`On March 17, 2021, Dr. Park treated plaintiff for toe pain and an infected toenail. Park
`
`Decl. | 10, Ex. F. The medial edge of plaintiff s toe was red and inflamed and had adherent pus.
`
`Dr. Park removed the ingrown toenail and applied a dressing and bandages. Dr. Park noted that it
`
`was difficult to determine whether the ingrown toenail was related to the December 8, 2020, injury
`
`because the condition occurred after the original injury healed. Id.
`
`On April 22, 2021, Dr. Park treated plaintiff for complaints of pain radiating from his toe
`
`to his ankle. Park Deck ^ 11, Ex. G. Plaintiff was able to walk but had discomfort. A physical
`
`examination was normal except for the tenderness to palpation of the toe. The joint appeared to
`
`have mild bony hypertrophy. Dr. Park ordered an x-ray, prescribed sulindac, an anti-inflammatory
`
`medication, to address the pain and referred plaintiff to physical therapy. Dr. Park did not believe
`
`physical therapy was necessary, but plaintiff had repeatedly requested it. Id. This was the last
`
`time Dr. Park treated plaintiff. Park Decl. 12.
`
`Plaintiff underwent an x-ray on April 28, 2021, which revealed a distal fracture, which
`
`was
`
`a minor fracture in his right toe. Park Deck 13, Ex. H. The fracture did not require medical
`
`intervention and was not expected to cause much pain. Id.
`
`On July 29, 2021, a different doctor prescribed a cast shoe for plaintiff. Park Deck 14.
`
`Dr. Park did not believe a cast shoe was necessary during his course of treatment for plaintiff. Id.
`
`Plaintiff states that the other doctor stated that the cast shoe was necessary right after the injury to
`
`prevent further damage. Opposition at 3. Plaintiff states his condition improved by using the cast
`shoe. Id.
`
`Expert Opinion
`
`Dr. Park proffered an expert opinion from Dr. Feinberg, the Chief Medical Consultant for
`
`the California Correctional Health Care Services Office of Legal Affairs. MSJ, Feinberg Deck ^
`
`3, 7. Dr. Feinberg is board certified in Internal Medicine and previously worked at two California
`
`prisons and was a physician team leader at Kaiser Permanente for twelve years. Id. 4 Dr.
`
`Feinberg revie wed the medical treatment provided to plaintiff and concluded that the treatment Dr.
`
`Park provided was appropriate and medically acceptable. Id. ^ 8, 34. Dr. Feinberg agreed that
`3
`
`SER 066
`
`2
`
`4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`CS
`t: c
`o .o
`U ~
`-4—> 03° u
`'K o
`b tS
`C/> * k-
`“ b 16
`C/3 E
`"O
`D <D
`17
`.t: j=
`c t:
`3 ,o2: 18
`19
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`20
`
`21
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09048-JD Document 26 Filed 10/31/22 Page 4 of 8
`
`referral to a specialist was not indicated for this toe laceration, infection and other symptoms. Id.
`
`U 34. Dr. Feinberg also agreed that physical therapy was not medically necessary, and a cast shoe
`
`was not required unless there was a fracture. Id. 35, 36. Because the initial x-ray the day of the
`
`incident did not indicate a fracture, a cast shoe was not needed. Id. ^ 36. Furthermore, a toe
`
`fracture is rarely placed in a cast. Immobilization of the area is appropriate which was
`
`accomplished through the taping of plaintiff s toe and when plaintiff later complained of pain it
`
`was reasonable to then try the cast shoe. Id. Finally, Dr. Feinberg noted that Dr. Park prescribed
`
`numerous pain medications that are not available over the counter. Id. 37.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery, and affidavits show there is
`
`“no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
`
`law.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those that may affect,the outcome of the case.
`
`See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., All U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is
`
`genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
`
`party. See id.
`
`A court shall grant summary judgment “against a party who fails to make a showing
`
`sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that
`
`party will bear the burden of proof at trialf] . . . since a complete failure of proof concerning an
`
`essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.”
`
`See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, All U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The moving party bears the initial
`
`burden of identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue
`
`of material fact. Id. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to “go beyond the pleadings
`
`and by [his] own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
`
`file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” See id. at 324
`
`(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (amended 2010)).
`
`For purposes of summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the light most
`
`favorable to the nonmoving party; if the evidence produced by the moving party conflicts with
`
`evidence produced by the nonmoving party, the court must assume the truth of the evidence
`4
`
`SER 067
`
`2
`
`4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`S3
`
`eg
`I §
`13
`CJ|
`o 14
`O
`oo O
`5 o 15
` ~
`O 16
`C/0-a E
`<L> <D
`■ c tj
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09048-JD Document 26 Filed 10/31/22 Page 5 of 8
`
`submitted by the nonmoving party. See Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 1999).
`
`The court’s function on a summary judgment motion is not to make credibility determinations or
`
`weigh conflicting evidence with respect to a disputed material fact. See T. W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v.
`
`Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass ’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987).
`
`The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability for
`
`civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
`
`constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457
`
`U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The rule of “qualified immunity protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or
`
`those who knowingly violate the law.”’ Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001) (quoting
`
`Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). Defendants can have a reasonable, but mistaken,
`
`belief about the facts or about what the law requires in any given situation. Id. at 205. A court
`
`considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the
`
`deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established such
`
`that it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he
`
`confronted. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (overruling the sequence of the
`
`two-part test that required determining a deprivation first and then deciding whether such right
`
`was clearly established, as required by Saucier). The Court may exercise its discretion in deciding
`
`which prong to address first, in light of the particular circumstances of each case. Pearson, 555
`U.S. at 236.
`
`A right is clearly established if it was “sufficiently clear [at the time of the conduct at
`
`issue] that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that
`
`right.” Taylor v. Barkes, 575 U.S. 822, 825 (2015). The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned
`
`that courts should not define clearly established law at a high level of generality. See White v.
`
`Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 552 (2017) (per curiam); see, e.g., Kisela v. Hughes, 1 38 S. Ct. 1148, 1154
`
`(2018) (per curiam) (officer entitled to qualified immunity for shooting a woman who was armed
`
`with a large knife, was ignoring officers’ orders to drop the weapon, and was within striking
`
`distance of her housemate; prior cases on excessive force did not clearly establish that it
`
`was
`unlawful to use force under these circumstances, where officer may not have been in apparent
`
`5
`
`SER 068
`
`2
`
`4
`
`5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`C3I E6i 13
`03 '
`Ip 14
`oo O
`h ts
`15
`ooo to
`“ Q 16
`00
`-O E
`<u <u
`+-> f—
`*c tS
`3 O
`z 18
`
`17
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09048-JD Document 26 Filed 10/31/22 Page 6 of 8
`
`danger but believed woman was a threat to her housemate); White, 137 S. Ct. at 552 (officer
`
`entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law prohibiting a
`
`reasonable officer who arrives late to an ongoing police action from assuming that officers already
`
`present had followed proper procedure, such as providing identification, before using deadly
`
`force).
`
`DISCUSSION
`Eighth Amendment
`
`Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s
`
`proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976);
`
`McGvckin v. Smith, 91A F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX
`
`Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1 133, 1 136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A determination of
`
`“deliberate indifference” involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the
`
`prisoner’s medical need and the nature of the defendant’s response to that need. Id. at 1059.
`
`A serious medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in
`
`significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id. The existence of an
`
`injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or
`
`treatment, the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily
`
`activities, or the existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples of indications that a
`
`prisoner has a serious need for medical treatment. Id. at 1059-60.
`
`2
`
`4 5
`
`6
`
`7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`.2 12
`I E
`o ,o
`13
`- ^
`o r 4
`O ] 4
`^ <+-■
`oo O
`O ts
`15
`•n.
`co
`toS Q 16
`c/o
`E
`-a
`17
`2 £
`3 oZ 18
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she knows that a prisoner faces a
`
`substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate
`
`it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must not only “be aware of
`
`facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but
`
`“must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but did
`
`not actually know, the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the
`
`risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion
`
`between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to
`
`a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). In addition, “mere
`6
`
`SER 069
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09048-JD Document 26 Filed 10/31/22 Page 7 of 8
`
`delay of surgery, without more, is insufficient to state a claim of deliberate medical indifference. .
`
`. . [Prisoner] would have no claim for deliberate medical indifference unless the denial was
`
`harmful.’' Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm 'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985).
`
`A review of the record establishes, without any genuine dispute of fact, that Dr. Park did
`
`not violate plaintiff s rights under the Eighth Amendment and is therefore entitled to qualified
`
`immunity. Plaintiff s central argument is that he disagrees with the medical treatment that he
`
`received. He argues that he should have been provided a cast shoe and physical therapy
`
`immediately after the injury and that he should have been provided stronger pain medication and
`
`referred to a podiatrist. However, the Ninth Circuit has held that, “[a] difference of opinion
`
`between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to
`
`a § 1983 claim.” Franklin, 662 F.2d at 1344.
`
`2
`
`4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`.5I E
`13
`o ro i4
`CO O5 ts
`S '5go
`*5
`CO E
`-o
`17
`~ -c.
`= tL
`•D oZ 18
`19
`
`15
`
`16
`
`20
`
`21
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`The facts demonstrate that Dr. Park treated plaintiff many times for his toe and foot issues.
`
`Dr. Park provided an ankle brace, removed an ingrown toenail and prescribed pain medication and
`
`antibiotics. Dr. Park repeatedly noted that the nerves and blood vessels were intact, and plaintiff
`
`was able to bear weight, walk and go up and down stairs. It is also undisputed that at the February
`
`12, 2021, appointment, plaintiff s condition had greatly improved.
`
`Plaintiff s contentions that he should have been provided a cast shoe and physical therapy
`
`immediately after the injury fail to demonstrate a constitutional violation. Dr. Park determined
`
`that a cast shoe and physical therapy were not necessary. Even assuming that a different doctor at
`
`the prison did tell plaintiff that a cast shoe would have been necessary immediately after the injury
`
`to prevent further damage, this is still merely a difference of opinion. Furthermore, the medical
`
`expert noted that the treatment provided by Dr. Park was proper and that there had been no need
`
`for a cast shoe after the injury because there was no fracture.
`
`Plaintiff s nerves and blood vessels were continually intact, he had good range of motion
`
`and he was consistently able to bear weight and walk on the toe and foot. Even if Dr. Park’s
`
`treatment had been incorrect and a cast shoe should have been immediately provided, plaintiff
`
`cannot demonstrate that Dr. Park was deliberately indifferent based on all the treatment he
`
`provided. If Dr. Park should have been aware of the risk of not providing the cast shoe, but did
`7
`
`SER 070
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09048-JD Document 26 Filed 10/31/22 Page 8 of 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`5
`
`not actually know, he did not violate the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severethe risk of
`
`serious harm to plaintiff. See Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1188. To the extent plaintiff argues that Dr.
`
`Park committed medical malpractice or was negligent, that is insufficient to make out a violation
`
`of the Eighth Amendment. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004).
`
`Similarly, plaintiff fails to demonstrate a constitutional violation with respect to Dr. Park’s
`
`6 II treatment of his pain. Plaintiff s condition was continually monitored, and he. was prescribed
`
`acetaminophen-codeine, sulindac and ibuprofen for pain. It was also noted that plaintiffs degree
`
`7 8
`
`of pain described was inconsistent with Dr. Park’s findings and based on plaintiffs ability to bear
`9 || weight, walk and move up and down stairs. Plaintiffs allegations that he was only provided
`
`over
`the counter medication is contradicted by the undisputed facts that demonstrate the medication
`|| was only available by prescription.
`
`10
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`—I E
`§1
`Vj O
`h 3
`
`Si3 Q 16
`
`Consequently, Dr. Park is entitled to qualified immunity for this Eighth Amendment claim.
`
`All of the treatment that Dr. Park provided and plaintiffs mere disagreement with the treatment
`
`fail to demonstrate deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
`
`Even if there was a constitutional violation, it was not clearly established that Dr. Park’s
`
`actions were unconstitutional, in light of the case law' above regarding differences of opinion.
`
`-a E
`<D <D
`■<—*
`17 || Based on the undisputed facts, no reasonable doctor would have believed that the extensive
`'c r
`3 OZ 18
`19
`
`I—
`
`medical treatment Dr. Park provided was unlawful.
`CONCLUSION
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED.
`2. The Clerk is requested to terminate all pending motions, enter judgment, and close the
`
`file.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: October 31,2022
`
`JAMES DONATO
`United Slates District Judge
`
`8
`
`SER 071
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09048-JD Document 27 Filed 10/31/22 Page 1 of 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`JOSE LUIS GARCIA
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`KYEONG PARK,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 21-cv-09048-JD
`
`JUDGMENT
`
`Pursuant to the order ofdismissal signed today, this case is dismissed with prejudice.
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: October 31,2022
`
`JAMES
`TO
`United St^es District Judge
`
`SER 072
`
`1 2 3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`03I § P 13
`
`O 14
`oo O
`h o
`§1
`-o E
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`D o
`2 18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`APPENDIX
`
`Betas
`
`C i
`
`
`

`

`Phone Message/Call
`* Final Report *
`
`GARCIA, JOSE LUIS - F44226
`
`* Final Report *
`Document Contains Addenda
`
`34y/o generally healthy male, unremarkable med history, takes no chronic meds, pushing a heavy cart loaded with approx 300
`dinner trays to be delivered to inamtes when somehow he lost control of the cart, and it fell onto his R foot. Per TTA RN, diffuse
`bleeding, with medical R distal great toe & nail almost completely detached. RN very concerned about crush toe injury with likely
`fracture that may require surgery. Last Tdap 2/9/20. RN was able to control bleeding with compression bandage. Spoke with
`Dr. Olaez at NMC-ER, who accepted pt for further evaluation/tx. Pt transferred, code 1.
`
`Encounter Info: Patient Name: JOSE GARCIA,DOB: 11/09/1986,CDCR: F44226,FIN: 10000001411575512F44226,Facility:
`CTF,Encounter Type: Institutional Encounter
`
`Addendum by Chen, Yun-Ching P&S on December 09, 2020 04:38:23 PST (Verified)
`Pt returned from NMC-ER: No fracture found on xray, but had a large laceration that took off part of the R great toenail bed,
`which was sutured. Suture removal in lOd, pain control. Ordered Ibuprofen 600mg TID PRN and Tylenol#3 2 tabs TID PRN for
`pain control, temporary crutches, LVN 3d for wound care, and lay-in xlwk. PCP to issue 7410.
`
`Result type:
`Result date:
`Result status:
`Result title:
`Performed by:
`Verified by:
`
`Phone Message/Call
`December 08, 2020 21:04 PST
`Modified
`POC
`Chen, Yun-Ching P&S on December 08, 2020 21:11 PST
`Chen, Yun-Ching P&S on December 08, 2020 21:11 PST
`
`Printed by: Feinberg, Bennett P&S
`Printed on: 4/4/2022 15:05 PDT
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`AGO 001
`
`

`

`
`
`: A
`
`PPENDIX
`
`D
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09048-JD Document 17-6 Filed 05/06/22 Page 5 of 88
`
`Jan/12/2022 11:43:08 AM
`01/12/2022 ffED 111 30 ?AX
`
`->8316787272
`
`2/2
`0092/002
`
`Signed
`Ordering Physician: ANDRES ROJAS PA-C
`The CT dose for tills exam is: CTDFVOL DLP
`
`RAOIOLOQY
`XR FOOT RIGHT 3 VIEWS 12/08/20
`Document: 1209-0033
`
`RIGHT FOOT
`INDICATION: Right great toe compression injury.
`COMPARISON: None.
`TECHNIQUE: AP, lateral, and oblique views.
`
`FINDINGS:
`Bone density: Normal osseous mineralization.
`Acute findings: No acute fracture or subluxation is identified.
`Nonacute findings: None.
`SKEtfwffiZ SSS'in ft. region of the distal
`
`Received
`JAN 12 2022
`Medical Recoi uo
`CTF
`
`end right greet
`
`toe. No radiopaque foreign body.
`Additional: None.
`IMPRESSION: Right foot soft tissue swelling/injury without acute osseous pathology or
`radiopaque foreign body.
`
`LOC: 50
`Report electronically signed by Radiologist Joseph P Marshall, MD 12/9/2020 9:09 AM
`
`Nativldad
`
`swsassttr- sssr^ DEPJS™ «.».
`
`Name: JOSE L GARCIA
`
`Page 1
`
`SER 007
`
`

`

`APPENDIX
`
`E
`
`
`

`

`rage i ui 1
`
`(..AUfOriHi ~ {;4V'iv,h'.'; ; ivJN.M-
`HEALTH CARE SERVICES
`
`Correctional Training Facility
`
`Name:
`DOB:
`Exam Name:
`
`JOSE GARCIA
`11/9/1986
`XR FOOT RIGHT-3 VWS |
`73630
`Age:
`34Y 9M
`Primary Care Provider: K. Park, MD - CTF|
`K. Park, MD
`Ordering Provider:
`
`11575512
`Patient ID:
`Secondary ID: F44226
`
`Exam Date: 4/28/2021 10:53 AM
`
`CLINICAL INDICATION: s/p injury, pain over 1st MTP
`COMPARISON: August 7, 2017.
`TECHNIQUE: 3 views of the foot.
`
`FINDINGS:
`
`An ununited distal tuft fracture is present at the first distal phalanx. This is
`new from prior exam.
`
`No additional fractures are appreciated.
`The joint spaces are preserved.
`Bone mineralization is normal.
`No significant soft tissue swelling is seen.
`
`IMPRESSION:
`
`Ununited tuft fracture of the great toe.
`
`Electronically Signed by: RWaters, MD
`
`Date Signed: 4/28/2021 11:23 AM
`
`Report Electronically Signed by: RICHARD WATERS, MD
`Report Electronically Signed on: 4/28/2021 11:23 AM
`
`http://synrisprod.cphcs.ca.gov/reports/printReportCustom.aspx?acc=l 163190&stat=Final&r... 9/7/2021
`
`

`

`APPENDIX
`F
`
`Pere
`
`•s
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`Jose Luis Garcia, F-44226
`Correctional Training Facility
`P.0. Box 705
`Soledad, CA 939S0
`In Pro-Per
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`JOSE LUIS GARCIA,
`
`)
`)
`Plaintiff,
`)
`
`Case No.:3:21-cv-09048 JD (PR)
`
`DECLARATION OF JOSE LUIS GARCIA
`(CDCR No. F-44226)
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`))
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`v.
`
`KYEONG PARK,
`
`Defendant.
`
`I, Jose Luis Garcia, declare;
`
`1• I am the plaintiff in this action currently incarcerated at the
`
`
`
`Correctional Training Facility in Soledad. My prison identification number
`
`is(F-44226).
`
`2. On December 8, 2020, while working
`as a volunteer in the facility where I
`
`am confined, I was injured when a heavy cart loaded with approximately 300
`
`dinner trays weighting about 400 to 500 pounds fell onto my right foot causing
`
`me a considerable injury.
`
`3. For over six months following the surgery, I experienced a very strong
`
`pain in my right foot and ankle. I communicate to Dr. Park about this
`concern,
`
`1
`
`SER 036
`
`1
`
`2 3 4 5 6 7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`1 :■ §nd personally requested him a referral to an specialist to obtain better
`
`treatment, but Dr. Park denied my request, expressed a disbelief, and just
`
`
`
`prescribed over-the-counter pain medication which was not helping to my
`
`condition.
`
`4. After April 2021, Dr. Park concluded providing me medical attention. After
`
`April 22, 2021, Dr. Jonathan Ashby took over as my primary care physician. On
`
`July 15, 2021, I received from Dr. Ashby a cast shoe. While delivering the cast
`
`shoe to me, Dr. Ashby expressed that this cast shoe
`
`was necessary right after
`
`the injury to prevent a further damage.
`
`5. During the course of the treatment provided by Dr. Ashby, my condition
`
`
`
`improved significantly due to the fair treatment provided by Dr. Ashby.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
`
`and the United States, that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
`
`declaration was executed on August 16, 2022, at Soledad, California.
`
`42^
`
`----
`Jose Luis Garcia (F-44226)
`In Pro-Per
`
`2 3 4
`
`5 6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`2
`
`SER 037
`
`

`

`
`
`‘t
`
`APPENDIX
`G
`
`/
`
`

`

`?
`
`;
`
`«
`
`'3
`
`Vs
`
`;
`
`?
`
`:
`
`; ' :•
`
`.."3
`
`j
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`7536 DME /Supply Receipt
`12/09/20 01:05 PST Performed by Gultia, Helen RN
`Entered on 12/09/20 01:23 PST
`iMMiEnc ousty^; xMepig&ong
`
`SttKSLS'MSfc""-
`
`DME Air Cell Cushion-High Profile (Roho): N/A
`DME Air Cushion (for Wheelchair Seat): N/A
`DME Air Cushion-Full (Day/Geri Chair): N/A
`DME Ankle Foot Orthoses/Knee Ankle Foot: N/A
`DME Back Braces: N/A
`DME Bone Growth Stimulators Electrical: N/A
`DME Breast Pump: N/A
`DME Bubble Humidifier: N/A
`DME Burn Garment: N/A
`DME Cane: N/A'
`DME Commode Chair: N/A
`DME Compression Stocking: N/A
`DME Continuous Passive Motion
`Lower: N/A
`dme Continuous Passive Motion Upper: N/A
`DME Crutches: Crutches Temporary '
`DME Expiration Crutches: 12/18/20
`DME Diabetic Supplies Monitors: N/A
`DME Eyeglass Frames:' Eyeglass Frames Permanent
`DME Eyeglasses for Aphakia: N/A
`DME Foot Orthoses: N/A
`DME Hearing Aid: N/A
`DME Hearing Impaired Disability Vest: N/A
`DME Heel/Foot Protector: N/A
`DME Helmet: N/A
`DME Incontinence Supplies: N/A
`DME Insulin Pump: N/A
`DME Knee Braces: N/A
`DME Mobility Impaired Disability Vest: N/A
`DME BiPap: N/A
`DME CPAP :. N/A
`DME Ocular Conformers: N/A
`DME Ostomy Supplies: N/A
`DME Oxygen Concentrators: N/A
`DME Pressure Reducing Support Services: N/A
`DME Prosthetic Limbs Lower Extremity: N/A
`DME Prosthetic Limbs Upper Extremity: N/A
`DME Reading Glasses: N/A
`DME Scleral Shell Contact Lenses: N/A
`DME Sitz Bath: N/A
`DME Spinal Orthoses: N/A
`DME Standing Frames: N/A
`DME Therapeutic Contact Lenses: N/A
`DME Therapeutic Shoes/Orthotics: N/A
`DME Toilet Seat Lift (Erector) : N/A
`DME Tracheostomy Care Supplies: N/A
`DME Truss Hernia Support: N/A
`DME Urologic Supplies: N/A
`DME Vision Impaired Disability Vest: M/A
`DME Voice Prosthesis Augmentative: N/A
`DME Walkers: N/A
`DME Wheelchair: N/A
`DME Wound Care Dressings: N/A
`DME Negative Pressure Wound Therapy: N/A
`DME Wrist Support Brace: N/A
`DME Other Options: N/A
`P^^e;VMedipalJf:<^i^^|^Su^lyv( Receipt.■;
`7536 Descriptions 1: Crutches
`7536 Quantity 1: ^
`------------------
`■7 53 6 Expiration 1: 12/18/20 . .
`7 536 Patient Signature: X •—
`7536 Issuing Staff Signature:
`7536 Witness Marne: X
`
`77
`
`.Jt,
`
`..
`
`/*■-
`
`CTF(Location:CTF A LA A3
`; 324 ; 324001U)
`Patient Name: GARCIA
`JOSE LUIS
`DOB / AGE / SEX: 11/09/86
`Admitting Physician:
`Admission Date / MRN / Financial Hum: 01/29/14
`
`F44226
`
`34 Years Male
`1000000141157E5£^=2Fi44o£ 2
`Print Date
`12/09/20
`Print Time
`01:23 PST
`Printed by:Gultia, Helen pjn
`
`0
`
`SER 045
`
`