Holtz v. Phillips et al, No. 4:2014cv05018 - Document 196 (E.D. Wash. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND CLOSING FILE. Granting 193 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (SK, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Holtz v. Phillips et al Doc. 196 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 4:CV-14-5018-EFS Plaintiff, 8 9 No. RONALD HOLTZ, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND CLOSING FILE v. JOELLA PHILLIPS, Physician Assistant; PETER BECK, MSW, M-Div, Mental Health Program Manager; WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SECRETARY BERNARD WARNER, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY KEVIN BOVENKAMP, DEPUTY DIRECTOR SCOTT R. FRAKES, (DOC) MANAGER/MEDICAL DIRECTOR ROY GONZALEZ, (DOC) HEALTH CARE MANAGER MARY JOE CURREY, COYOTE RIDGE CORRECTIONS CENTER, SUPERINTENDENT JEFFREY UTTEHT, HEALTH CARE MANAGER DARREN CHLIPALA, DR. B. RODRIGUEZ, PSYCHIATRIST DR. MICHAEL REZNICEK, WASHINGTON STATE PENITENTIARY, SUPERINTENDENT, STEVEN SINCLAR, MEDICAL DIRECTOR JAMES EDWARDS, DR. F. SMITH, MENTAL HEALTH PHYSICIAN MELANIE HOWARD, AMERICAN DISABILITIES SPECIALIST HOLLY DE/CAMBRE (DOC), in official and individual capacities, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER G. STEVEN HAMMOND, PH.D., 21 Defendants. 22 23 Ronald Holtz filed this lawsuit to seek relief for Defendants’ 24 alleged failure to provide Mr. Holtz with the necessary medication and 25 counseling for his medical and mental-health conditions. Defendants ask 26 the Court to enter judgment in their favor as to each of Mr. Holtz’s ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 claims: Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 193. This 2 motion largely duplicates a summary-judgment motion that Defendants 3 filed last year. The Court struck the prior summary-judgment motion in 4 order to permit Mr. Holtz the opportunity to engage in additional 5 discovery before responding to summary-judgment arguments. ECF No. 182. 6 A new discovery deadline was established and the dispositive-motion- 7 filing deadline continued. ECF No. 182. Thereafter, Mr. Holtz was 8 released from state custody in April 2015. This fall, Defendants filed 9 the instant summary-judgment motion. 10 Although Mr. Holtz was provided notice regarding the consequences 11 of failing to file a response and facts contesting Defendants’ summary- 12 judgment motion, ECF No. 195, Mr. Holtz has not filed any documents in 13 response. 14 Defendants’ summary-judgment motion, the Court proceeds to analyze 15 Defendants’ motion based merely on the record provided by Defendants 16 and the relevant legal authority. For the reasons that follow, the Court 17 determines Mr. Holtz’s claims do not survive summary judgment. 18 A. Because there are no documents filed in response to Background1 19 While in the custody of the Washington Department of Corrections, 20 Mr. Holtz suffered a variety of medical and mental-health conditions. 21 22 1 23 Because Mr. Holtz did not file any documents in response to the summary- judgment motion, this background is based on the facts contained in Defendants’ 24 summary-judgment materials. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); LR 56.1(b). More detailed 25 facts are contained in Defendants’ Statement of Facts, ECF No. 194, and the 26 supporting declarations and exhibits. ORDER - 2 1 In October 2012, Mr. Holtz was diagnosed with narcissistic personality 2 disorder. A month later, Mr. Holtz was diagnosed with HIV. He met with 3 Dr. Lara Strick, an HIV specialist. Dr. Strick counseled Mr. Holtz 4 regarding what HIV is, how it is spread, and treatment options. Mr. 5 Holtz was placed on antiretroviral treatment. 6 In February 2013, Mr. Holtz was transferred to Coyote Ridge 7 Correctional Center. Dr. Elizabeth Suiter, who worked on-site as an HIV 8 specialist, was Mr. Holtz’s HIV treatment provider. Mr. Holtz complained 9 on numerous occasions of abdominal pain and other medical conditions, 10 including anxiety. Mr. Holtz was seen by medical staff on at least three 11 occasions in March 2013. In April 2013, prison medical providers, 12 including Dr. Suiter, Defendant Dr. Steven Hammond, and Defendant Dr. 13 Michael Reznicek, treated Mr. Holtz. 14 In May 2013, Dr. Suiter met with Mr. Holtz regarding his HIV 15 medications and lab tests, which showed that the HIV viral loads were 16 almost undetectable and his medications were successfully suppressing 17 the disease. Dr. Suiter examined Mr. Holtz’s complaints of chronic pain 18 and use of pain medications. Dr. Suiter noted Mr. Holtz’s use of 19 continued pain medication was concerning because his presentation, 20 examination, and observed behavior did not support the degree of pain 21 reported. Also in May 2013, Mr. Holtz refused to take medications or to 22 be examined by medical staff. About a week later, mental-health staff 23 met with Mr. Holtz in regard to his refusal to take his HIV medications. 24 And on May 28, 2013, Mr. Holtz met with Dr. Reznicek because he was not 25 taking his Clonidine as prescribed. 26 ORDER - 3 1 In June 2013, Dr. Strick met with Mr. Holtz. Dr. Strick encouraged 2 Mr. Holtz to take his HIV medications. Thereafter, Mr. Holtz was 3 transferred to Washington State Penitentiary, and within three days of 4 his arrival, he met with Defendant Dr. James Edwards, the facility 5 Medical Director, to discuss his non-HIV medical complaints. Mr. Holtz 6 admitted he stopped taking his HIV medications for six weeks but that 7 he was ready to start taking them again. Mr. Holtz also complained of 8 abdominal 9 consultation, Mr. Holtz had a telephonic meeting with Dr. Strick to pain, his HIV heartburn, medications. and Dr. constipation. Strick Following prescribed certain this 10 restart HIV 11 medications until Mr. Holtz’s lab results returned. Once the lab results 12 returned, Dr. Strick updated Mr. Holtz’s HIV prescription. The last week 13 of June, Mr. Holtz was also seen by mental-health staff on three 14 occasions. 15 In July 2013, Defendant Dr. F. Smith evaluated Mr. Holtz in regard 16 to his chronic abdominal pain. Dr. Smith prescribed Mr. Holtz two 17 medications to address his constipation. Three days later, Dr. Strick 18 prescribed a new medication. About two weeks later, Mr. Holtz was seen 19 by Dr. Edwards and requested a bed wedge. Dr. Edwards did not believe 20 a bed wedge was medically necessary but brought it to the Care Review 21 Committee for discussion as Mr. Holtz was housed in the Intensive 22 Management Unit where bed wedges were not permitted. 23 In August 2013, Mr. Holtz complained of nausea, abdominal cramps, 24 and pain. He was seen by Dr. Smith on two occasions in August. He was 25 issued two blankets to use in place of a bed wedge to assist with his 26 comfort while sleeping. Dr. Strick was emailed regarding Mr. Holtz’s ORDER - 4 1 complaints with his HIV medications, and in response, Dr. Strick advised 2 medical staff that she wanted to be notified if Mr. Holtz developed a 3 rash as that would indicate hypersensitivity to the HIV medications. 4 On August 26, 2013, Mr. Holtz again refused to take his HIV 5 medication. The next day, Dr. Strick had a teleconference with Mr. Holtz 6 to discuss his HIV medications and his complaints about side effects. 7 Dr. Strick determined that Mr. Holtz’s complaints were not entirely 8 consistent with the side effects of his HIV medications. However, Dr. 9 Strick changed his HIV medication and ordered follow-up tests to see 10 how the new medication would treat his HIV. 11 Over the course of the next two weeks, Mr. Holtz vacillated between 12 seeking treatment for purported medication side effects to not wanting 13 to discuss his medical conditions. On September 12, 2013, Dr. Strick 14 met with Mr. Holtz and determined that his renal functioning had 15 stabilized since the change in HIV medications. Dr. Strick ordered 16 follow-up testing to reassure Mr. Holtz. And on September 18, 2013, the 17 facility Care Review Committee approved Dr. Strick’s request for an 18 ultrasound of Mr. Holtz’s abdomen in response to his complaints of 19 chronic abdominal pain with right-sided tenderness. The ultrasound 20 indicated Mr. Holtz’s spleen, kidneys, and liver appeared normal. Mr. 21 Holtz was seen by medical staff on at least three occasions in the 22 latter half of September. 23 In October 2013, the Care Review Committee considered Mr. Holtz’s 24 request for a third blanket to address his Gastroesophageal Reflux 25 Disease (GERD) with Los Angeles Classification Grade A Esophagitis, 26 which is ORDER - 5 a mild form of esophagitis. The Care Review Committee 1 determined, based on the information before it, that a third extra 2 blanket was not medically necessary. Mr. Holtz met with Dr. Strick via 3 videoconference on October 10, 2013, and was advised he was doing well 4 on his regimen of HIV medications. On November 7, 19, and 22, 2013, Mr. 5 Holtz refused to be provided any mental-health services. Mr. Holtz 6 thereafter again refused to take his HIV medications, and Dr. Strick 7 was notified. On December 4, 2013, Dr. Strick spoke with Mr. Holtz on 8 the telephone, and it was arranged that Dr. Strick would communicate 9 with Mr. Holtz every two weeks. Following this telephone conference, 10 Mr. Holtz agreed to take his medications. Dr. Strick met with Mr. Holtz 11 on December 20, 2013, and then by phone on January 3, 2014. 12 Mr. Holtz was seen on three occasions in January 2014 for unrelated 13 medical issues, and in addition on January 14, 2014, Mr. Holtz met with 14 Dr. Grubb in regard to his anxiety. Dr. Grubb agreed to a sixty-day 15 trial prescription of Clonidine to address Mr. Holtz’s anxiety. On both 16 January 17 and 24, 2014, mental-health staff reported that Mr. Holtz 17 did not exhibit any mental-health abnormalities. On January 21, 2014, 18 Dr. Strick met with Mr. Holtz, wherein he reported that he was feeling 19 better and having fewer symptoms associated with his HIV medications. 20 On February 6, 2014, mental-health staff met with Mr. Holtz, and 21 Mr. Holtz did not exhibit any signs of mental distress. On February 16, 22 2014, 23 prescription for Clonidine and increased the Celexa prescription. Dr. 24 Strick met with Mr. Holtz on February 25, 2014, and then again on March 25 11, 2014. After the last meeting, Dr. Strick made changes to the HIV 26 medication based on the recent lab tests. Dr. Strick also considered Mr. ORDER - 6 Holtz met with Dr. Grubb, who continued Mr. Holtz’s 1 whether Mr. Holtz’s request for a bed wedge was medically necessary; 2 Dr. Strick determined a bed wedge was not medically necessary as Mr. 3 Holtz’s esophageal condition could be treated with prescriptions and 4 monitored. Also, in March 2014, Mr. Holtz met with Dr. Grubb on two 5 occasions; Citalopram was the continued course of treatment. In 6 April 2014, Mr. Holtz was seen by medical staff on six 7 occasions, including by Dr. Grubb and Dr. Strick; during which he did 8 not have any complaints related to his diagnosed conditions. 9 On May 8, 2014, prison staff found Mr. Holtz sitting on his cell 10 floor complaining that he had passed out. Mr. Holtz was examined and no 11 injuries were observed that would be associated with falling from a loss 12 of consciousness; however, he was admitted for overnight observation to 13 the 14 teleconference with Dr. Strick; Dr. Strick continued the same regimen 15 for HIV treatment based on the lab results. facility medical clinic. Five days later, Mr. Holtz had a 16 On May 27, 2014, Mr. Holtz was found lying on his cell floor, 17 unresponsive to voice commands. Mr. Holtz denied any pain or injury and 18 there was no evidence of any injury. Mr. Holtz spoke to a medical 19 provider, and was told to immediately report any changes in his health 20 condition. The next morning, Mr. Holtz was again examined; it was 21 determined the prior day’s event was the result of malingering and not 22 a loss of consciousness. 23 Mr. Holtz was thereafter transferred to Washington Corrections 24 Center. Dr. Strick met with Mr. Holtz on June 2, 2014. Mr. Holtz was 25 seen on six other occasions by medical staff in June 2014 for issues 26 unrelated to his diagnosed conditions. In addition, Mr. Holtz met with ORDER - 7 1 mental-health staff in June 2014, and his Clonidine and Citalopram 2 prescriptions 3 transferred to Stafford Creek Corrections Center (SCCC). Mr. Holtz met 4 with the SCCC facility medical director and medical staff, and Mr. Holtz 5 was examined for his reports of regurgitating in his sleep. Mr. Holtz 6 was given hemoccult cards to collect stool samples and test for blood. 7 In early August 2014, Mr. Holtz refused to take his Celexa and 8 Clonidine prescriptions, and the next day reported having an allergic 9 reaction to one of his antiviral medications. However, he did not have 10 any noticeable symptoms of an allergic reaction. Mr. Holtz was seen on 11 two other occasions in August 2014 by medical staff, where on one 12 occasion he provided samples on three hemoccult cards. Two came back 13 negative for the presence of blood and one had a positive reading. Mr. 14 Holtz advised that he had a colonoscopy in 2010; however, medical staff 15 were unable to obtain such records from the reported medical facility 16 as that facility responded “patient not found.” Ultimately, the medical 17 staff 18 colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). On August 25, 2014, 19 Dr. Strick met with Mr. Holtz and discussed that the current HIV regimen 20 was successfully treating his HIV. decided were to continued. submit a Later that month, gastro-intestinal Mr. Holtz consultation for was a 21 Also in August, Mr. Holtz refused to take multiple doses of 22 Clonidine. Therefore, Dr. Furst discontinued the prescription. However, 23 in 24 Inventory Interpretive Report for Correctional Setting to determine what 25 mental-health medication would best treat the identified mental-health September 26 ORDER - 8 2014, Dr. Furst requested a Personality Assessment 1 issues. Mr. Holtz refused to take the test. Mr. Holtz was continued on 2 Citalopram to address his mental-health conditions. 3 On September 11, 2014, Mr. Holtz was examined for complaints of 4 an unwitnessed loss of consciousness; he did not have any visible signs 5 of injury and his vital signs were normal. Mr. Holtz was transported to 6 a public hospital for further evaluation where a tomography scan was 7 taken and revealed no fractures or other evidence of injury. Low blood 8 pressure could not be ruled out as a cause for a possible syncopal 9 episode. Mr. Holtz was issued a soft collar to wear at night for the 10 following week. Dr. Strick met with Mr. Holtz on October 6, 2014, and Mr. Holtz 11 12 was continued on the same medication. On April 5, 2015, Mr. Holtz was released from DOC custody. 13 14 B. Authority and Analysis 15 Mr. Holtz alleges Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right 16 to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, the Americans with 17 Disabilities 18 constitutional and law claims. 19 1. 20 Under Act, Rehabilitation Act, and a variety must show of state Eighth Amendment 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an inmate “deliberate 21 indifference to serious medical needs” to maintain an Eighth Amendment 22 claim based on prison medical treatment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 23 97, 104 (1976). 24 parts. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2006). First, the 25 plaintiff must show a “serious medical need by demonstrating that 26 failure to ORDER - 9 The test for deliberate indifference consists of two treat a prisoner's condition could result in further 1 significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” 2 Id. at 1096 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Second, the 3 plaintiff 4 deliberately indifferent. Id. This second prong—defendant's response to 5 the need was deliberately indifferent—is satisfied by showing (a) a 6 purposeful failure to respond to a prisoner's pain or possible medical 7 need 8 Indifference 9 intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown by 10 the way in which prison physicians provide medical care.” Id. at 1059 11 (quoting Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 392 (9th Cir. 12 1988)). Yet, an “inadvertent [or negligent] failure to provide adequate 13 medical care” alone does not state a claim under § 1983. Id. (citing 14 Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105). And a difference of opinion between the 15 prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment 16 does not constitute deliberate indifference. Franklin v. State of Or., 17 State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). and must (b) show harm “may the defendant's caused appear by when the response purposeful prison to the need indifference. officials deny, delay was Id. or A prisoner need not show his harm was substantial; however, such 18 19 would provide 20 defendant was deliberately indifferent to his needs. Id. at 1060. If 21 the 22 treatment of the prisoner [it] ordinarily militates against a finding 23 of deliberate indifference.” Id. (citations omitted). harm is additional an support “isolated for exception” the to inmate's the claim defendant's that the “overall 24 Defendants do not contest that Mr. Holtz suffered from HIV and 25 that HIV is a serious medical condition. Defendants maintain though that 26 ORDER - 10 1 the evidence establishes that they were not deliberately indifferent to 2 the need to treat Mr. Holtz’s HIV. The Court agrees. 3 In November 2012, when Mr. Holtz was diagnosed with HIV, he met 4 with Dr. Strick, who is an infectious disease physician, to discuss his 5 diagnosis and was counseled consistent with the state administrative 6 standards 7 treatment, which is the standard of care for someone with HIV. Mr. Holtz 8 was seen by a medical provider on a regular basis and his medications 9 updated if clinically necessary. Although Mr. Holtz was not placed at 10 a facility with an onsite HIV specialist, the uncontested evidence 11 establishes that his serious medical condition was addressed: Dr. Strick 12 and Dr. Suiter consulted and treated with Mr. Holtz as medically needed. 13 In addition to his HIV treatment, Mr. Holtz was treated for GERD. 14 He received medications and, at a minimum, an additional blanket to help 15 him prop himself up while he slept. Mr. Holtz was seen on an appropriate 16 basis for his complaints of pain and other medical conditions and 17 received necessary treatment. The record does not support a finding that 18 Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Mr. Holtz’s GERD or other 19 medical conditions. 20 In for HIV regard to care. Mr. Mr. Holtz Holtz’s was diagnosed placed on antiretroviral narcissistic personality 21 disorder and other mental-health symptoms, Mr. Holtz refused to consent 22 to consistent mental-health treatment in 2012. The next year, Mr. Holtz 23 requested 24 treatment to address these issues. While housed at Washington State 25 Penitentiary, Mr. Holtz met with mental-health staff on more than 26 fifteen occasions. His mental-health treatment continued at each of the ORDER - 11 to meet with mental-health providers and was provided 1 facilities he was housed. The record reflects that at times Mr. Holtz 2 refused medication and refused to submit to mental-health treatment. 3 The record does not support a finding that Defendants were deliberately 4 indifferent to Mr. Holtz’s mental-health conditions. 5 Furthermore, the Court determines that Mr. Holtz failed to present 6 facts to support a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether 7 Defendants Bernard Warner, Kevin Bovenkamp, Scott Frakes, Roy Gonzales, 8 Holly Delcambre, Jeffery Uttect, Steven Sinclair, Darren Chlipala, and 9 Marry Jo Currey caused or personally participated in a deprivation of 10 Mr. Holtz’s constitutional right. See Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 11 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). There is no evidence presented that these 12 Defendants, 13 approved, 14 pertaining to Mr. Holtz’s medical or mental-health treatment. who or held knowingly supervisory acquiesced roles, in implicitly authorized, unconstitutional conduct Lastly, the Court finds Defendants are entitled to qualified 15 16 immunity in regard to Mr. Holtz’s § 1983 claim. It was clearly 17 established at the time of the alleged incidents that officers could 18 not intentionally deny or delay access to medical care. Estelle, 429 19 U.S. at 104-05. However, as discussed above, Mr. Holtz failed to present 20 evidence to establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding 21 whether Defendants violated Mr. Holtz’s clearly established right. For these reasons, summary judgment is granted in Defendants’ 22 23 favor on Mr. Holtz’s § 1983 claim. 24 /// 25 // 26 / ORDER - 12 1 2. Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act 2 Mr. Holtz alleges that Defendants violated both the Americans with 3 Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act (RA) by failing to 4 provide him with adequate medical treatment because of his disability. 5 Under the ADA, “no qualified individual with a disability shall, 6 by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be 7 denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public 8 entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. 9 § 12132. Under the RA, “No otherwise qualified individual with a 10 disability in the United States, as defined in section 705(20) of this 11 title, shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded 12 from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected 13 to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal 14 financial assistance.” 29 U.S.C. § 794. For purposes of establishing 15 liability under these statutes, the plaintiff must show more than 16 evidence 17 discrimination because of a disability. Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., 609 18 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 19 249 (7th Cir. 1996) (The ADA “would not be violated by a prison’s simply 20 failing to attend to the medical needs of its disabled prisoners . . . 21 . The ADA does not create a remedy for medical malpractice.”)). of inadequate treatment for disability, as this is not 22 At summary judgment, under both of these statutes, Mr. Holtz must 23 provide evidence to support a finding that a genuine dispute of fact 24 exists as to whether he suffers a disability and that he was denied a 25 benefit because of his disability. See Weinreich v. Los Angeles Cnty. 26 Metro. Transp. Auth., 114 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 1997); Johnson by ORDER - 13 1 Johnson v. Thompson, 971 F.2d 1487, 1493 (9th Cir. 1992). Assuming for 2 purposes of this motion that Mr. Holtz’s HIV and other medical and 3 mental-health conditions are a disability, the Court finds Mr. Holtz 4 failed to establish a genuine dispute of fact as to whether he was 5 denied a benefit because of his purported disability. 6 Court grants Defendants summary judgment on Mr. Holtz’s ADA and RA 7 claims. 8 3. 9 Mr. Holtz also alleges that Defendants’ failure to treat and 10 counsel him constitutes medical negligence. Mr. Holtz however failed to 11 provide evidence to establish a genuine dispute of fact as to his medical 12 negligence claim. Accordingly, the Medical Negligence 13 In order to support his medical negligence claim, Mr. Holtz needed 14 to present evidence that Defendants “failed to exercise that degree of 15 care, skill, and learning expected of a reasonably prudent health care 16 provider at that time in the profession or class to which he or she 17 belongs, in the state of Washington, acting in the same or similar 18 circumstances; [and that such failure was a proximate cause of the 19 injury complained of.” RCW 7.20.040. This burden includes a need to 20 present expert testimony that the injury was proximately caused by a 21 failure to comply with the applicable standard of care, or to show that 22 non-expert 23 standard of care. Young v. Key Pharm., Inc., 112 Wn.2d 216, 227-28 24 (1989). Mr. Holtz failed to satisfy these summary-judgment burdens. 25 Accordingly, Defendants are granted summary judgment as to the claim 26 for medical negligence. ORDER - 14 testimony was sufficient to establish a breach of the 1 4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 2 Mr. Holtz failed to present evidence to establish a genuine dispute 3 of material fact as to his claim for intentional infliction of emotional 4 distress. There is no evidence presented that Defendants engaged in 5 extreme and outrageous conduct that was intended to, or recklessly 6 inflicted, emotional distress to Mr. Holtz, and that Mr. Holtz suffered 7 severe emotional distress as a result of Defendants’ conduct. See Robel 8 v. Roundup Corp., 148 Wn.2d 35, 51 (2002). Defendants responded to Mr. 9 Holtz’s requests to be seen by medical and mental-health staff. Although 10 Mr. Holtz disagreed with the course of treatment prescribed by the 11 medical 12 conditions and the pertinent standard of care. Accordingly, the Court 13 grants 14 infliction of emotional distress. providers, Defendants’ Defendants’ summary decisions judgment on were the based claim on of diagnosed intentional 15 5. Other State-Based Claims 16 Mr. Holtz also alleges that he is entitled to relief for violations 17 of the Washington state constitution. ECF No. 3-1 at 28-30. However, 18 Mr. Holtz may not recover money damages for an alleged violation of a 19 constitutionally guaranteed state right. See Spurrell v. Bloch, 40 Wn. 20 App. 854, 861-62 (1985); see also Reid v. Pierce Cnty., 136 Wn.2d 195 21 (1998) (declining to establish a private action for damages under the 22 Washington state constitution’s right to privacy clause). 23 Finally, Mr. Holtz alleges that Defendants were negligent by 24 failing to counsel with him. The statutes and rules cited do not provide 25 a private cause of action for a violation. RCW § 70.24; WAC § 246-100. 26 /// ORDER - 15 1 C. Conclusion 2 For the above reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 193, is GRANTED. 4 5 2. The Clerk’s Office is to enter judgment in Defendants’ favor. 6 3. All pending dates and deadlines are STRICKEN. 7 4. This file shall be CLOSED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and forward a copy to Mr. Holtz and counsel. DATED this 30th day of November 2015. 11 _____ s/Edward F. Shea ___________ EDWARD F. SHEA Senior United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Q:\EFS\Civil\2014\5018.msj.lc1.docx ORDER - 16
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
