United States District Court, D. Oregon
RICHARD E. GURULE, Plaintiff,
JERI TAYLOR; D. WETTLAUFER; D. LOZIER; W. POWELL; J. WALKER; T. LEMENS; GARRETT LANEY; N. SOBOTTA; M. NOFZIGER; CHRIS GOVE; J. DAFORE; S. SHELTON; M. NOOTH; M. GOWER; COLLET PETERS; L. BEAMER; H. NEVIL; L. WILLIAMSON; T. KELLY; JOHN DOE; S. FRANKE, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. MCSHANE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
an inmate at the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution
(EOCI), filed suit against defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and alleged deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs and violations of his rights to due
process. Defendants now move for summary judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on all claims. Plaintiff
did not respond to defendants' motion. For the reasons
set forth below, the motion is granted.
March 17, 2015, plaintiff received a Misconduct Report
charging him with disciplinary violations of Distribution I
and Racketeering. Compl. at 5 (ECF No. 2) & Ex. A.
Plaintiff was accused of “cheeking” his
medications, taking them to his cell, and distributing the
medications to other inmates in exchange for canteen items.
Id. Apparently, “cheeking” is the act of
hiding medication in the mouth. During the course of the
investigation, correctional officials found over $270 worth
of canteen items in plaintiff's area, even though
plaintiff had not purchased items at the canteen for more
than two years. Id. Ex. A.
March 24, 2015, plaintiff appeared at a disciplinary hearing
on the charges. During the hearing, plaintiff
“indicated he received payment for services provided to
inmates in the form of canteen although he explained this was
for art work.” Id. Ex. B. The hearings officer
dismissed the racketeering charge and found plaintiff had
committed Distribution I by distributing his medications to
other inmates in exchange for canteen items. Id. In
making her decision, the hearings officer relied on
information from confidential informants (CIs), whose
testimony corroborated the allegations and narrative
described in the misconduct report. Id.; Nevil Decl.
¶ 5 & Att. 3 at 14. Pursuant to policy of the Oregon
Department of Corrections (ODOC) and for the safety of the
CIs, their identities and verbatim testimony were not made
available to plaintiff. Nevil Decl. ¶ 6 & Att. 3 at
March 30, 2015, EOCI medical staff was informed of the
disciplinary decision against plaintiff. Lozier Decl. ¶
4. In response, Nurse Practitioner Deena Lozier discontinued
plaintiff's prescription for Neurontin and Tramadol and
alternative medications were prescribed to treat
plaintiff's rheumatoid arthritis. Id.
¶¶ 4, 8. Plaintiff objected to the discontinuation
and asserted that the disciplinary decision was based on
April 15, 2015, Dr. Leland Beamer examined plaintiff. He
noted that plaintiff exhibited no clinical symptoms of
rheumatoid arthritis and found no need to renew
plaintiff's prescriptions for Neurontin or Tramadol at
that time. Id. ¶ 10.
April 18, 2015, plaintiff reported a rash, vomiting,
diarrhea, and itching. Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff was
given a Benadryl injection and scheduled for a follow-up
April 23, 2015, plaintiff complained of a rash, itchy throat,
diarrhea, and vomiting and believed he was suffering
withdrawal from Neurontin and Tramadol. Lozier Decl. ¶
12. The next day, plaintiff was examined by EOCI staff and
offered a liquid diet, which he declined. Id. ¶
April 29, 2015, Dr. Beamer examined plaintiff and
discontinued all medications in response to plaintiff's
possible adverse drug reaction. Id. ¶ 14.
meantime, plaintiff sought administrative review of the
disciplinary decision. Nevil Decl. ¶ 7 & Att. 3 at
1-4. On review, the Inspector General returned the case to
the hearings officer “to reopen to address more
appropriate rule(s), and sanctions.” Compl. Ex. D.
27, 2015, a second disciplinary hearing was conducted and the
hearings officer found that plaintiff had committed the
violations of Distribution II and Racketeering. Nevil Decl.
¶ 8 & Att. 2 at 2-3; Compl. Ex. E.
7, 2015, plaintiff sought administrative review of the second
disciplinary decision. Nevil Decl. ¶ 12 & Att. 3 at
25-31. The Inspector General affirmed the decision. Compl.
Ex. F at 4.
9, 2015, plaintiff was examined by Dr. Dewsnup, who
prescribed an Enbrel injection “continuous for 12