Humphrey v. Pleaset Valley State Prison Med. Dept. CA5

Filed 5/28/15 Humphrey v. Pleaset Valley State Prison Med. Dept. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IRVING C. HUMPHREY, F069770 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 10CECG02505) v.

PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON OPINION MEDICAL DEPARTMENT et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jeffrey Y. Hamilton, Jr., Judge. Irving Humphrey, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Reily & Jeffery, Inc. and Janine K. Jeffery for Defendants and Respondents. -ooOoo- Irving Humphrey, a state prison inmate, filed a complaint for negligence and various Government Code violations against Felix Igbinosa, M.D., the Chief Medical

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Peña, J.

Officer at Pleasant Valley State Prison, and the Pleasant Valley State Prison Medical Department. Humphrey’s claims stemmed from his not receiving necessary anti-seizure medication for a two-week period. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Humphrey challenges the summary judgment entered in favor of Dr. Igbinosa. Based on the undisputed facts, the trial court concluded that Dr. Igbinosa was not liable for negligence because he was not involved in the denial of Humphrey’s medication. The court further found that Dr. Igbinosa was not vicariously liable as a public entity’s supervisory employee for the acts or omissions of his employees. Humphrey asserts that a triable issue of material fact exists regarding whether Dr. Igbinosa knew Humphrey was being deprived of his medication. The trial court correctly granted Dr. Igbinosa’s summary judgment motion. Accordingly, the judgment will be affirmed. BACKGROUND Since having a brain tumor removed in 1993, Humphrey has suffered from seizures on a regular basis. Humphrey was prescribed an anti-seizure medication to help control his seizures. However, even when taking this medication, Humphrey still suffers from seizures in his sleep every three or four months. Humphrey was not given his anti-seizure medication for 14 days in 2009, from May 5 to May 19, after his prescription expired. On May 7, Humphrey filed an inmate appeal stating that he was having a problem getting his medication. On May 9, Humphrey suffered a seizure and fell out of his bed, injuring his shoulder. Humphrey’s inmate appeal was partially granted on May 14 and he began receiving his medication on May 19. Humphrey did not speak with Dr. Igbinosa during the two-week period when he did not receive his medication. Dr. Igbinosa did not know about Humphrey’s medication problem or of any conditions at the prison that would have caused Humphrey not to