(PC) Jorgenson v. United States of America, et al., No. 1:2017cv00817 - Document 74 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER DENYING Motion for Reconsideration 73 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/10/2019. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 PAUL JORGENSON, Plaintiff, 7 8 9 10 Case No.: 1:17-CV-00817-LJO-EPG-PC MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. THOMAS MOORE, M.D., (ECF NO. 73) Defendants. 11 12 Plaintiff Paul Jorgenson is a federal prisoner presently incarcerated at U.S. Penitentiary Atwater. 13 He is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with claims stemming from a medical visit to and 14 treatment he received at Emanual Hospital Center (“EMC”) on November 2016. See generally ECF No. 15 19, Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). He complains about the fact that he was sent on a medical 16 visit, and about the various aspects of that medical visit, including how he was transported to EMC, how 17 he was restrained during his transport and visit, and how unnamed correctional officers treated him 18 during the visit. Id. In addition, he complains that even though he refused treatment, he was nonetheless 19 subjected to a variety of procedures at EMC, including a CT scan and several biopsies, the latter of 20 which allegedly caused complications related to his lung function and necessitated further treatment, 21 none of which he consented to. Id.; see also ECF No. 20, Findings and Recommendations regarding 22 SAC. He brings a claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 23 1346(b); an Eighth Amendment claim (based upon Bivens v. Six Uknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 24 U.S. 388 (1971), against four unnamed correctional officers; and state tort law claims against EMC and 25 individual medical providers Richard Haak (“Haak”) and Jaspal Randhawa (“Randhawa”). 1 Defendants EMC and Randhawa moved to dismiss on numerous grounds, including that Plaintiff 1 2 consented to treatment. ECF No. 29. Defendant Haak filed a separate motion to dismiss that made a 3 similar argument. ECF No. 46. Defendants present copies of Plaintiff’s consent forms and argue those 4 documents may be considered on a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion pursuant to the 5 incorporation by reference doctrine because Plaintiff references numerous other portions of his own 6 medical records in his Complaint. ECF No. 29 at 4-5; ECF No. 46 at 4-5. The assigned magistrate judge, after discussing the pending motions with the parties at the 7 8 scheduling conference,1 determined that, as to this issue, it was appropriate to convert the motions to 9 dismiss into motions for summary judgment. ECF No. 70 at 2, ¶ 2. She then set a briefing schedule to 10 permit Plaintiff to supplement the record regarding the matter, with an opportunity for Defendants’ to 11 reply if Plaintiff chose to supplement. Id. Defendants EMC and Randhawa now move for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s 12 13 conversion order on the ground that it effectively operates as an improper dispositive decision on their 14 motion to dismiss. The Court will assume without deciding that converting a motion to dismiss into a 2 15 motion for summary judgment is a dispositive determination and will treat that determination as 16 findings and recommendations (“F&Rs”) regarding the same. Relatedly the Court will treat EMC’s 17 motion for reconsideration as objections thereto. So treated, the Court adopts the F&Rs in full. The 18 magistrate judge’s scheduling order is a reasonable procedural approach to the matter at hand and is one 19 the undersigned would have ordered had the motion been presented in the first instance to the assigned 20 district judge, rather than having been automatically referred to the magistrate judge for the preparation 21 of F&Rs. 22 23 1 EMC and Randhawa also complain that they were not given notice that the magistrate intended to discuss their motion to 24 dismiss at the scheduling conference, as she had previously indicated the motions would be submitted on the papers. The 25 undersigned fails to see how the moving parties were prejudiced by this “surprise” opportunity to discuss their motion. 2 It is notable that the moving parties cite no authority in support of this proposition. 2 1 Even assuming, arguendo, that it is appropriate for the Court to take judicial notice of Plaintiffs’ 2 entire medical record because he has extensively referenced it in his Complaint, this action would not be 3 dispositive of Defendants’ contention that Plaintiff consented to treatment. Judicial notice simply 4 permits the Court to take notice of the existence and content of the documents in question, not of the 5 truth of the matters stated therein. See Fed. R. Evid. 201; San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. 6 Salazar, 686 F. Supp. 2d 1026, 1032 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (taking judicial notice of public records for their 7 content, not for the truth of that content). Therefore, assuming, as this court must, the truth of Plaintiff’s 8 allegation that he was ordered to sign paperwork by one of the correctional officers who had allegedly 9 been mistreating him, SAC at 4, it is at least plausible to infer that his consent (even if in writing) was 10 not voluntary or informed. This alone justifies converting the motions to dismiss to ones for summary 11 judgment as to this issue. 12 Therefore, viewing the SAC in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court believes the 13 magistrate judge correctly applied the law under the circumstances in converting the motion to one for 14 summary judgment. Therefore, treating the conversion order as F&Rs, the Court ADOPTS IN FULL 15 the F&Rs. To the extent doing so is even necessary under Local Rules 302 and 303, the Court re-refers 16 the motion for summary judgment to the assigned magistrate judge for the preparation of additional 17 F&Rs. Should the summary judgment motion be resolved against Defendants, they may raise the 18 incorporation by reference issue along with any other relevant issues in their objections. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ April 10, 2019 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 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.
