(PC) Haney v. Cross et al, No. 2:2018cv01836 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 12/7/2020 ADOPTING 18 Findings and Recommendations in full; DISMISSING 14 Second Amended Complaint. DENYING 16 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; and DENYING 17 Motion to vacate the referral; The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. CASE CLOSED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
(PC) Haney v. Cross et al Doc. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAVON HANEY, 12 13 No. 2:18-cv-1836 JAM KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER 14 DR. RICHARD CROSS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 5, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections to the 23 findings and recommendations. 24 In his objections, plaintiff reiterates, inter alia, his claim that he suffered permanent 25 injuries and chronic pain due to the “botched surgery” by Dr. Cross, and complains that plaintiff’s 26 allegations should have been taken as true and plaintiff permitted to provide expert testimony to 27 so demonstrate. However, the magistrate judge explained why plaintiff’s allegations fail to rise to 28 the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. (ECF No. 18 at 9-12.) While the court is not 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 unsympathetic to plaintiff’s situation, the court cannot convert what is essentially a state law 2 malpractice claim into a constitutional violation just because he is a state prisoner. Estelle v. 3 Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (“Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional 4 violation merely because the victim is a prisoner”); see also McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 5 1059 (9th Cir. 1992) (same), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs. Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 6 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).1 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 8 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 9 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 10 analysis. Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without prejudice to enable plaintiff to assert his claims in 11 state court. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 5, 2020, are adopted in full; 14 2. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (ECF No. 14) is dismissed without prejudice; 15 3. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 16) is denied; 16 4. Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the referral (ECF No. 17) is denied; and 17 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 18 19 20 DATED: December 7, 2020 21 /s/ John A. Mendez THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff’s complaint that the processing of his case was unreasonably delayed is well-taken. However, it has often been said that “[j]udges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation, and this Court is unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and matters.” Cortez v. City of Porterville, 5 F. Supp. 3d 1160, 1162 (E.D. Cal. 2014). 2

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.