(PC) Witkin v. Lotersztain et al, No. 2:2019cv00406 - Document 102 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta on 05/12/23 ADOPTING 94 Findings and Recommendations in full and GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 53 Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant Dr. Lotersztain is DENIED summary judgment on P laintiff's Eighth Amendment and First Amendment retaliation claims. Defendants Scott, Largoza, Kuersten, and Gates are GRANTED summary judgment on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims. Defendants Lotersztain, Scott, Largoza, Kuersten, and Gates are GRANTED summary judgment on Plaintiff's state law claims. Defendant Lotersztain's request for qualified immunity is DENIED without prejudice. This matter is REMANDED to the Magistrate Judge for further scheduling. (Licea Chavez, V)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL WITKIN, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:19-cv-0406 DJC KJN P v. ORDER MARIANA LOTERSZTAIN, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking 18 relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 31 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that 22 any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 23 days. Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 97.) 24 Defendants filed a response. (ECF No. 98.) 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 26 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully 27 reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by proper analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the findings and recommendations 1 2 filed March 31, 2023, are adopted in full; and moving Defendants’ motion for 3 summary judgment (ECF No. 53) is granted in part and denied in part, as follows: 1. Defendant Dr. Lotersztain is denied summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Eighth 4 5 Amendment and First Amendment retaliation claims; 2. Defendants Scott, Largoza, Kuersten, and Gates are granted summary 6 7 judgment on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims; 3. Defendants Lotersztain, Scott, Largoza, Kuersten, and Gates are granted 8 9 summary judgment on Plaintiff’s state law claims; 4. Defendant Lotersztain’s request for qualified immunity is denied without 10 11 prejudice; and 5. This matter is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further scheduling. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: May 12, 2023 Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 /witk0406.805 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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.
