From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Torres v. Hemsley

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 1, 2006
No. CIV. S-04-79 LKK/GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV. S-04-79 LKK/GGH P.

February 1, 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 November 8, 2005, the magistrate filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties. The court has reviewed the file and the findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge and finds that the decision is not sufficiently supported by the record. There remains a disputed material fact about the nature of the injury to plaintiff's eye at the time that he sought medical care via Officer Hemsley. Additionally, it is also disputed whether defendant, or the nurse, decided that the medical care could be delayed until later that evening. In order to determine whether Hensley exhibited deliberate indifference with regards to plaintiff's injury, a determination must be made about whether a serious medical need existed. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 299 (1991). Taking all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff at this time, the court finds that summary judgment is inappropriate because it is disputed whether plaintiff faced a substantial risk of serious harm.

The magistrate judge found that, based on the facts plaintiff provided, defendant could have reasonably inferred that plaintiff's injury was not an emergency and that he could wait to be seen that evening during pill call, and therefore that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. However, this court finds that by taking all inferences in favor of the plaintiff, it is not possible to determine at this time whether the defendant acted reasonably in not ensuring that plaintiff received prompt medical care.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court DECLINES to adopt the magistrate judge's November 8, 2005 findings and recommendations; and

2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Torres v. Hemsley

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 1, 2006
No. CIV. S-04-79 LKK/GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2006)
Case details for

Torres v. Hemsley

Case Details

Full title:GUADALUPE TORRES, Plaintiff, v. HEMSLEY, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Feb 1, 2006

Citations

No. CIV. S-04-79 LKK/GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2006)