Giles v. Godinez

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-prison officials’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-prisoner’s section 1983 action, alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his schizoaffective disorder, as well as subjecting him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Dist. Ct. could properly find that plaintiff could not establish subjective elements of his claims because defendants, who are all non-medical officials, appropriately relied on judgment of medical officials with respect to their decisions regarding plaintiff’s medical treatment, as well as their opinion that plaintiff could withstand rigors of continued segregation confinement. Moreover, other complaints regarding conditions of his prison facility were not sufficiently severe to qualify as constitutional violation. Also, Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion in handling plaintiff’s request for recruitment of counsel, where: (1) Dist. Ct. granted said request and circulated said request to court’s list of approximately 50 attorneys on three separate occasions over course of one year; and (2) no attorney accepted said request. As such, Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion under these circumstances in acting on pending summary judgment motion even though plaintiff was unrepresented.