Govind v. Felker et al
Filing
71
ORDER signed by District Judge Otis D. Wright, II on 06/17/11 ORDERING that pltf's 8th Amendment claim will remain, but all other claims against dft Hunsaker are dismissed. (Michel, G)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
DANIEL H. GOVIND,
13
14
Plaintiff,
vs.
15
16
VEAL, et al
17
18
Defendants
_________________________
) No. 2:06 CV 02467 Consolidated with
)
)
2:08 CV-01183 ODW
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
19
20
On February 20, 2009 Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint [24].
21
In it, he purports to state the following causes of action: (1) denial of adequate
22
medical care, (2) Inadequate living conditions, (3) denial of his right to practice
23
his religion or interference with his practice of his religion, (4) racial and
24
religious discrimination, (5) denial of procedural due process in an
25
administrative hearing following a false write-up, (6) denial of access to the
26
courts, and (7) deprivation and destruction of personal property.al property.
27
28
The inartfully drafted pleading is not divided into causes of action nor the
1
identification of which defendant(s) are being called on to answer each
2
specific cause of action. Consequently no small amount of effort is required
3
to determine whether, in this case, causes of action have been stated against
4
Defendant Hunsaker. As far as the court is able to determine Hunsaker’s
5
name is not even mentioned except in relation to his hospital/clinic duties.
6
Hunsaker is a Medical Technical Assistant at High Desert State Prison.
7
As for the allegations against Hunsaker, they are as follows: “M.T.A. Mr.
8
Handsuker (sic) will not give the insulin in time nor he would give the
9
prescribed refill on time. He will make you wait one day.” “He held my
10
asthma pump for 1 day. He told me I am not going to give you your asthma
11
pump because you jumped the line.”
12
made against Hunsaker other than those cited above, therefore, as to counts
13
other than the denial of medical care, they are dismissed as to Hunsaker.
No allegations of any kind are
14
However, as to the above cited allegations, it appears that a cognizable
15
claim has been asserted for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s medical needs
16
under the Eighth Amendment. That claim against Defendant Hunsaker will
17
remain, but all other claims against this defendant are DISMISSED.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED: June 17, 2011
______________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
