Vega v. County of Los Angeles
Filed 5/31/06 Vega v. County of Los Angeles CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| ANTHONY VEGA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B183492 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC303993) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Andria K. Richey, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Cheryl C. Turner and Cheryl C. Turner for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Houle & Houle, Gregory Houle, and Richard Houle for Defendants and Respondents.
The trial court granted summary judgment on appellant Anthony Vega's complaint against respondents, who are employees of Los Angeles County, and the County. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
There are no material disputes about the following facts: In September 26, 2002, Vega was arrested for possession of a controlled narcotic substance (Health and Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)), and he was confined in Los Angeles County jail. The charge against Vega was dismissed pursuant to Penal Code section 1385 on October 17, 2002, but he remained incarcerated.[1] Vega's right foot was amputated on October 16 or 18, 2002.[2] He was released from custody on December 4, 2002.
Vega initiated the underlying action on October 10, 2003. On January 21, 2004, he filed his first amended complaint against the County of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and Doe defendants. This complaint asserted claims for deprivation of civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983), personal injuries in violation of statutes, medical negligence, negligence, and false imprisonment. As Doe defendants, Vega later named respondents Dr. Policarpio Enriquez, Dr. Alphonse Johnson, Dr. David Young, Deborah Kozar, Carmen Alcantara, Miriam Abrazado, Eleanor Billups, Qi Wei, Rita Dineros, Marc Klugman, and Richard Adams.
Following adjudications on various motions for summary judgment and adjudication, Vega's sole remaining cause of action on November 23, 2004, was his claim for deprivation of civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983) against respondents. On that date, respondents filed a motion for summary judgment regarding this claim. The trial court granted their motion on March 8, 2005, and judgment was entered accordingly.
DISCUSSION
Vega contends that the trial court erred in (1) granting summary judgment and (2) denying his request for a continuance to conduct further discovery. He is mistaken.
A. Summary Judgment
Vega contends that triable issues of fact preclude summary judgment on his claim for deprivation of civil rights, which alleges that (1) he was neither arraigned nor released from custody in a timely manner, and (2) he was denied necessary care due to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
1. Standard of Review
On appeal from an order granting a motion for summary judgment, the reviewing court conducts a de novo examination of the record to determine whether the reviewing party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law or whether genuine issues of material fact remain. (Krieger v. Nick Alexander Imports, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 205, 212.) â€
