Opinion
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On February 6, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Both plaintiff and defendants have filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
In his objections, plaintiff concedes summary judgment is proper as to defendants Smith and Heffner, but contends that summary judgment is improper as to Dr. Heatley, who plaintiff claims knew of the scabies outbreak in the prison and had received plaintiff's requests for further medical assistance. However, the undisputed evidence shows Dr. Heatley only treated plaintiff for unrelated conditions and, therefore, does not support a causal connection between any acts or omissions and plaintiff's injury. Plaintiff also requests an extension of time for further discovery and an order to compel the production of certain documents. These requests may be addressed by the magistrate judge.
Defendants raise three objections to the findings and recommendations. First, defendants contend that the magistrate judge improperly relied upon inadmissible evidence and treated plaintiff's allegations as fact despite defendants' evidence to the contrary. Many of the statements defendants object to, however, are the magistrate judge's characterization of the facts or factual inferences, rather than inadmissible items of evidence from plaintiff. The other factual objections are not central to the court's analysis and the court will reject these objections as moot.
Second, defendants object to the magistrate judge's analysis of plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Tseng and Nurse Goodgame-in particular the determination that Tseng and Goodgame "(possibly) knew and disregarded plaintiff's risk of having scabies when other treatments proved ineffective." However, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, such an inference is reasonable given that the record supports findings that plaintiff constantly raised the issue of scabies to no avail, there may have been a scabies outbreak in the prison at the time, and the various treatments plaintiff received were ineffective until he received scabies medication. Nurse Goodgame's comment that the reason plaintiff did not receive relief "could be [his] attitude" further raises a factual dispute as to defendants' knowledge and motivation. See Jackson v. McIntosh , 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that a plaintiff can support a claim of deliberate indifference by showing that a physician's treatment decision was motivated by something other than medical judgment).
Finally, defendants object based on their contention that Dr. Tseng and Nurse Goodgame are entitled to qualified immunity. To the contrary, courts hold that a determination that triable issues remain as to deliberate indifference precludes summary judgment on the ground that defendants could reasonably have believed their conduct did not violate clearly established law. Jackson , 90 F.3d at 332; see also Albers v. Whitley , 743 F.2d 1372, 1376 (9th Cir. 1984) (noting that deliberate indifference and qualified immunity are "mutually exclusive"), rev'd on other grounds, 475 U.S. 312 (1986).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed February 6, 2014 are adopted in full; and
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 44) is denied as to defendants Tseng and Goodgame and granted as to defendants Smith, Heffner and Heatley.