(PC) Wheeler v. Aliceson et al, No. 1:2012cv00860 - Document 122 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 115 Findings and Recommendations to Grant in Part and Deny in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/14/16. L. Goss (LPT at SATF - Corcoran), V. Trevino (M.S.W. at SATF - Corcoran), R. Coffin (Chief of Mental Health at SATF-Corcoran) and R. Garcia (M.S.W. at SATF - Corcoran) Terminated. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC WHEELER, 12 13 14 CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. K. ALICESON, et al., 15 (ECF No. 115) Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against 20 Defendants Garcia, Goss, Trevino, Isira, and Coffin on Plaintiff’s First Amendment 21 retaliation claim, and against Defendant Isira on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical 22 indifference and state law negligence claims. The matter was referred to a United States 23 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United 24 States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 25 On September 30, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and 26 recommendations to grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion for summary 27 judgment. (ECF No. 115.) Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended that 28 1 summary judgment be granted Plaintiff’s retaliation and state law negligence claims, but 2 denied on his Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim against Defendant Isira. 3 Defendant Isira objected to the recommendation to deny summary judgment on 4 the Eighth Amendment claim. (ECF No. 117.) Plaintiff responded to Isira’s objections. 5 (ECF No. 118.) Defendant Isira points to evidence indicating that he did not act with 6 deliberate indifference toward Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff has presented contrary 7 evidence indicating that Defendant acted purposefully and maliciously against Plaintiff. 8 The Magistrate Judge properly concluded that such disputes of fact cannot be resolved 9 on summary judgment. Nor can the Court conclude that Defendant is entitled to qualified 10 immunity where the evidence raises an issue of fact regarding whether Defendant 11 purposefully and maliciously denied Plaintiff appropriate care. Defendant Isira’s 12 objections do not raise an issue of fact or law under the findings and recommendations. 13 Plaintiff objected to the recommendation to grant summary judgment on the 14 remaining claims. (ECF No. 120.) Defendants filed a response. (ECF No. 121.) Plaintiff’s 15 objections are lengthy and reiterate arguments raised in his opposition to the motion for 16 summary judgment. The Court concludes that these arguments do not raise an issue of 17 fact or law under the findings and recommendations. 18 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has 19 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 20 Court finds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and by 21 proper analysis. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Court adopts in full the findings and recommendations filed September 30, 2016 (ECF No. 115); 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 74) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: a. Summary judgment is granted in favor of all Defendants on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim, 2 1 b. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendant Isira on Plaintiff’s state law negligence claim, and 2 c. Summary judgement is denied on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 3 4 claim against Defendant Isira. 3. The matter will proceed solely on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim 5 6 7 8 9 against Defendant Isira for inadequate medical care. 4. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ December 14, 2016 Dated: UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 10 5. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
