From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Quiroz v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 19, 2010
CASE NO. 1:06-CV-01426-OWW-DLB PC (E.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2010)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-01426-OWW-DLB PC.

July 19, 2010


ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT LEAVE TO SUBMIT AMENDED DECLARATIONS (ECF NO. 26) RESPONSE DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS


Plaintiff Carlos Quiroz ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendants Mallika Attygalla, Chyi Shen, Shu Pin Wu, Perlita McGuinness, and Derral G. Adams for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On November 19, 2009, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 26.) Defendants' motion for summary judgment relies almost entirely upon declarations submitted by doctor David B. Kaye, doctor J. Bradley Taylor, litigation coordinator Johanna Cordova, defense counsel Catherine W. Guess, and Defendants. (Defs.' Mot. Summ. J, Ex. 1, David B. Kaye Decl.; Ex. 2, J. Bradley Taylor Decl.; Ex. 3, Derral. G. Adams Decl.; Ex. 5, Mallika Attygalla Decl.; Ex. 6, Chyi Shen Decl.; Ex. 7, Shu-Pin Wu Decl.; Ex. 8, Perlita McGuinness Decl.; Ex. 9, Johanna Cordova Decl.; Ex. 9, Catherine W. Guess Decl.)

Defendants also cite to a transcript of Plaintiff's deposition, for the purpose of contending that Plaintiff is suing Defendant Adams in his official capacity only. (Defs.' Statement of Undisputed Facts 14; Ex. 4, Pl.'s Dep., dated February 26, 2009.) Defendants fail to submit anything that indicates Plaintiff was duly sworn and that the deposition accurately reflects Plaintiff's testimony. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(f). Thus, the deposition cannot be considered as evidence.

None of these declarations were verified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746. Section 1746 provides that an unsworn declaration may be considered as evidence if it "is subscribed by [the declarant], as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form . . . (2) If executed within the United States . . .: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'." An examination of the declarations indicates that none were verified under penalty of perjury pursuant to § 1746.

The Court will grant Defendants the opportunity to submit amended declarations. It is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants may submit amended declarations in support of their motion for summary judgment within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this order. Failure to submit amended declarations in a timely manner will be construed as waiver of the opportunity to submit amended declarations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Quiroz v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 19, 2010
CASE NO. 1:06-CV-01426-OWW-DLB PC (E.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2010)
Case details for

Quiroz v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Case Details

Full title:CARLOS QUIROZ, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND…

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

Date published: Jul 19, 2010

Citations

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-01426-OWW-DLB PC (E.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2010)

Citing Cases

Steinocher v. Smith

Moreover, plaintiff has not shown that the treatment he was provided on April 14, 2010 was medically…

Irizarry v. Corknard

Finally, the Court finds that, contrary to Plaintiff's assertions, Defendant Davies can testify as to what…