(PC) Hendon v. White et al, No. 2:2007cv01825 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2008)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 2/5/08 ORDERING that the FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS filed 1/4/07 7 are ADOPTED in full. This Action is DISMISSED; And the Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants. CASE CLOSED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Hendon v. White et al Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLOS HENDON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 2:07-cv-1825-GEB-CMK-P vs. ORDER WHITE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 / 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On January 4, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within 20 days. Timely objections to the findings 23 and recommendations have been filed. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Plaintiff claims that defendants – who are prison mental health professionals – 2 were deliberately indifferent to his mental health problems when they removed him from a 3 suicide watch cell and refused him readmittance to such a cell even though they knew he was 4 suicidal. In his objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, plaintiff 5 asserts that defendants “simply abandoned him as a patient.” The magistrate judge concluded 6 that plaintiff’s claim was not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because documents attached to 7 the complaint revealed that plaintiff was in fact treated by defendants and that plaintiff’s claim 8 amounted to either a claim of professional negligence or a difference of opinion with respect to 9 his mental health care. 10 In his objections, plaintiff cites several circuit court cases in support of his 11 argument that his claim is cognizable. In Woodward v. Correctional Medical Services of Illinois, 12 Inc., a case out of the Seventh Circuit, the administrator of the estate of a deceased pre-trial 13 detainee brought a § 1983 action arising from the detainee’s suicide. See 638 F.3d 917, 919 (7th 14 Cir. 2004). After a trial, the jury determined that defendants were deliberately indifferent. In 15 Olson v. Bloomberg, a case out of the Eighth Circuit, the mother on an inmate who committed 16 suicide brought a § 1983 action. See 339 F.3d 730, 731 (8th Cir. 2003). The court affirmed the 17 district court’s denial of summary judgment for defendants concluding that there was a genuine 18 dispute as to whether defendants ignored plaintiff’s need for medical assistance. See id. at 735- 19 38. In Cavelieri v. Shepard, also a Seventh Circuit case, the mother of a pre-trial detainee 20 brought a § 1983 action claiming deliberate indifference to detainee’s risk of suicide. See 321 21 F.3d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 2003). In affirming the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to 22 defendants, the court observed that there was evidence defendants did nothing in the face of a 23 life-threatening situation. See id. at 621-23. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 2 1 These cases are distinguishable from plaintiff’s case. The defendants in 2 Woodward ignored plaintiff’s mental health problems. See Woodward, 368 F.3d at 930. 3 Similarly, the claim in Olson was allowed to proceed because there was evidence that defendants 4 ignored plaintiff’s problem. See Olson, 339 F.3d at 735-38. Finally, there was evidence in 5 Cavelieri that defendants did nothing. See 321 F.3d at 621-23. In this case, the complaint 6 reveals that defendants did in fact provide plaintiff with some treatment and an assessment of his 7 mental health situation before removing him from the suicide watch cell. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72- 9 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 10 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 11 proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 4, 2008, are adopted in 15 2. This action is dismissed; and 16 3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants. 14 17 full; Dated: February 5, 2008 18 19 20 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
