From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Guy v. California Department of Corrections

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 30, 2006
No. CIV S-00-1598 LKK EFB P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-00-1598 LKK EFB P.

August 30, 2006


ORDER


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 General Order No. 262.

On May 17, 2006, 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 twenty days. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 17, 2006 are adopted in full;

2. Defendant's February 3, 2006, motion to dismiss is granted in part and the following claims are dismissed without prejudice: that defendants Ybarra and Phillips violated plaintiff's rights by refusing to cell-feed plaintiff; defendants Hooper and Haferkamp delayed access to medical care after plaintiff fell from his bunk; Hooper and Haferkamp denied plaintiff adequate medical treatment in January and February 2000; defendant Markey delayed plaintiff's receipt of medical care by improperly processing plaintiff's administrative appeal; defendant Phillips knew on January 6, 2000, that plaintiff had a serious medical condition but inadequately responded to plaintiff's request for treatment; Phillips wrote a disciplinary report that was false with respect to plaintiff's involvement in a cell fight; Phillips, Orr, Johnson and Roberts retaliated against plaintiff for filing an appeal complaining about inadequate medical treatment; Hooper, Roberts and Iwanek made a false report February 11, 2000, stating plaintiff disobeyed medical orders so as to cover for their delay in providing plaintiff medical treatment; defendants Culverson and Hooper conspired with each other and with medical staff to retaliate against plaintiff for filing an appeal related to the false disciplinary reports by preparing a chrono containing false information; Hooper, Markey, Rosario, Pliler and Depue delayed in processing an administrative appeal, untruthfully responded to plaintiff's appeals complaining of delayed medical care and did not process plaintiff's citizen's complaint asserting medical staff delayed treatment and failed to prescribe stronger pain medication; defendant Kirshner improperly processed plaintiff's complaints.

3. Defendants' February 3, 2006, motion to be dismiss is denied as to plaintiff's claim that defendant Orr failed to obtain immediate medical treatment for plaintiff on December 2, 6, and 8, 1999, after plaintiff fell from his bunk; and,

4. Within thirty days from the date of this order defendant Orr shall file and serve an answer to the May 22, 2001 amended complaint.


Summaries of

Guy v. California Department of Corrections

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 30, 2006
No. CIV S-00-1598 LKK EFB P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2006)
Case details for

Guy v. California Department of Corrections

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM GUY, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 30, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-00-1598 LKK EFB P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2006)