Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Kadeem Edwards, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Defendant Sukhmani Bassi, a licensed vocational nurse at Valley State Prison, violated his Eighth Amendment rights by refusing to administer his third dose of Tylenol with codeine on December 3, 2022, the day after oral surgery to remove a retained bullet from his jaw. The provider had ordered the medication three times daily for three days. Edwards alleges Bassi refused the 5:15 p.m. dose stating there was no order in the system, and when he returned and argued, he was escorted away. He suffered excruciating pain, insomnia, and mental anguish until receiving the next dose at approximately 7:00 a.m. the following morning. The court screened the complaint and found a cognizable deliberate indifference claim against Bassi, but dismissed claims against CDCR and John Doe defendants.
The Attorney General's Office filed a waiver of service on Bassi's behalf in April 2024 and obtained two extensions. Counsel then moved to withdraw because Bassi stopped communicating. The court granted withdrawal, and Bassi proceeded pro se but failed to respond to court orders requiring a responsive pleading and an order to show cause. On May 26, 2026, the court directed the Clerk to enter Bassi's default. Edwards then filed motions for default judgment and for indemnification in June 2026. Bassi did not respond to either motion.
The Court’s Holding
Applying the seven Eitel factors, the magistrate judge recommends granting the motion for default judgment in part. The first factor (prejudice to plaintiff) favors default because Bassi has not participated since September 2024 and plaintiff has no other means of relief. The second and third factors (merits and sufficiency) favor default: the complaint alleges a serious medical need (post-surgical pain) and deliberate indifference (knowing refusal to administer prescribed medication). The medication administration record showing the dose was 'Not Done' because plaintiff was agitated does not contradict the allegation that Bassi refused the dose before he became irate by claiming no order existed. The fourth factor (sum of money) favors default as the $10,000 request is modest and a smaller award is recommended. The fifth factor (dispute of material facts) favors default because well-pleaded allegations are taken as true. The sixth factor (excusable neglect) favors default because Bassi knew of the action, requested representation, was advised to cooperate, then ignored counsel and court orders. The seventh factor (policy favoring merits) weighs against default but is not dispositive where defendant's failure to participate makes a merits decision impractical.
On damages, the magistrate judge recommends $2,500 in compensatory damages but denies punitive damages. Allegations concerning damages are not deemed true upon default; plaintiff must prove them. The record shows a single missed dose with acute pain and insomnia overnight, but no lasting injury or further treatment. The court found that the factual allegations in Cortinas v. Mora, where the plaintiff suffered multiple denials of medication over six weeks, exceeded the circumstances here, but still recommended the same $2,500 amount as 'symbolic vindication' of constitutional rights. Punitive damages are denied because the conclusory allegation of 'malice intent' is not a well-pleaded fact, and the established conduct—a single refused dose during a heated exchange followed by resumption of medication—does not reflect evil motive or reckless indifference. The motion for indemnification is denied because CDCR is not a party (dismissed on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds), is not a 'person' under § 1983, indemnification is a state law matter between the State and employee that does not create a federal claim, the Plata consent decree does not support individual damages claims, and the extensions granted to former counsel were within the court's discretion.
Key Takeaways
- A prisoner's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim can survive on allegations that a nurse refused to administer prescribed post-surgical pain medication, causing acute pain overnight, even if the medication was resumed the next morning.
- Default judgment is appropriate where a defendant who waived service and knew of the lawsuit fails to respond to counsel, court orders, and motions, and no excusable neglect is shown.
- Upon default, well-pleaded factual allegations are taken as true except for damages, which must be proven; exhibits attached to the complaint that do not directly contradict allegations do not defeat the claim.
- Compensatory damages for a single missed dose of pain medication may be limited to a modest amount ($2,500) as 'symbolic vindication' of constitutional rights, particularly where no lasting injury is alleged.
- Punitive damages require more than a single instance of deliberate indifference; they demand evidence of evil motive or reckless indifference, which a heated exchange and one refused dose do not establish.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the application of the Eitel factors in a prisoner civil rights case where a medical provider defaults after initially appearing through counsel. It reinforces that default does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to the full damages requested; the court independently assesses compensatory and punitive damages based on the record. The ruling clarifies that a medication administration record documenting a patient's agitation does not necessarily contradict the prisoner's version of events where the refusal allegedly preceded the agitation.
The denial of indemnification underscores that Eleventh Amendment immunity bars suits against state agencies in federal court for damages, and that consent decrees like Plata do not create private rights of action for damages. The case also demonstrates the court's obligation to ensure a defaulted pro se defendant receives notice of the default judgment motion, directing service at last known addresses.