(PC) Mora v. California Correctional Center, No. 2:2014cv00581 - Document 74 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/26/2018 ORDERING that the 64 Findings and Recommendations are NOT ADOPTED. This matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
(PC) Mora v. California Correctional Center Doc. 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC MORA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:14-cv-0581 KJM DB P v. ORDER EATON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 27, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendants have filed objections to 23 the findings and recommendations and plaintiff has filed responses to those objections. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court 26 declines to adopt the findings and recommendations and refers the matter back to the assigned 27 magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The magistrate judge finds that summary judgment should be granted on plaintiff’s 2 negligence claims in favor of defendants Powell, Wooten, and Nweke. ECF No. 64 at 23-24. 3 The finding is supported by cases cited in the findings and recommendations. Id. However, with 4 respect to the Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Eaton, Gomer, Sanderson, Leslie and 5 Kremer, it is not clear whether the magistrate judge analyzed the claims under the proper 6 standard. As noted in the findings and recommendations, delay of medical care can constitute 7 “deliberate indifference” under the standard for Eighth Amendment violations. ECF No. 64 at 15 8 (citing Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 393-394 (9th Cir. 1988)). However, to show 9 deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must show “a state of mind more blameworthy than 10 negligence,” which “requires ‘more than ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner’s interests or 11 safety.’” Id. (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994)). It is not clear whether the 12 magistrate judge applied this standard or the lower standard for negligence when analyzing 13 plaintiff’s Eight Amendment claims. See, e.g., ECF No. 64 at 17-18 (denying summary judgment 14 for defendant on the Eighth Amendment claim against Eaton because “[t]he fact that Eaton was 15 unaware that plaintiff was suffering retinal detachment does not meant that a reasonable 16 registered nurse in his position would not have sought immediate help from a doctor for 17 plaintiff’s sudden loss of vision . . . .”). 18 Additionally, it appears the magistrate judge inadvertently cited to ECF No. 40, referring 19 to it as “plaintiff’s sworn testimony given at his deposition.” See ECF No. 64 at 8; see also ECF 20 No. 40 (Order Re Consent or Request for Reassignment). 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 27, 2018 are not adopted; and 23 2. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 24 25 proceedings consistent with this order. DATED: September 26, 2018. 26 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 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.