Pinkston v. Fierro, et al
Filing
151
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 146 MOTION for amendment and relief from judgment filed by Michael Alexandre Pinkston and VACATING 144 judgment entered on 9/28/05. Defendants are GRANTED partial summary judgment in connection with plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference. Action is REMANDED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Case reopened., signed by Judge Robert E. Coyle on 1/27/06. (Robles, S)
(PC) Pinkston v. Fierro, et al
Doc. 151
Case 1:00-cv-06193-LJO-SMS
Document 151
Filed 01/30/2006
Page 1 of 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 D. FIERRO, et al., 14 15 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff has timely moved this court for amendment and 20 relief from the judgment defendants entered on September 28, 21 2005. 22 The court denies plaintiff's motion to the extent that 23 plaintiff argues that the court erred in granting summary 24 judgment for defendants with respect to plaintiff's Eighth 25 Amendment claim that defendants provided inadequate medical care. 26 1 Defendant. vs. Plaintiff, MICHAEL A. PINKSTON, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-F-00-6193 REC/SMS P ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AMENDMENT AND RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (Docs. 146-148), VACATING JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS ENTERED ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 (Docs. 143-144), GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS AND REMANDING TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 1:00-cv-06193-LJO-SMS
Document 151
Filed 01/30/2006
Page 2 of 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
However, the court grants plaintiff's motion to the extent that plaintiff seeks relief from judgment on the ground that defendants did not move for summary adjudication of plaintiff's claim of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The First Amended Complaint alleges such a claim in Paragraph 54. The court's Order filed on December 20, 2002 (doc. 84) also states that plaintiff "states a cognizable eighth amendment claim for cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against defendants." Therefore, the court
erred in footnote 11 of the Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 143) when it stated that plaintiff's contention that prolonged exposure to pepper spray constitute excessive force was not properly before the court. Because defendants' motion for summary judgment did not address this claim, the court vacates the judgment entered on September 28, 2005. The court grants summary adjudication for
defendants with respect to plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment for the reasons stated in doc. 143. The court remands
this action to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, including the filing by defendants of a motion for summary adjudication of plaintiff's claim of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. ACCORDINGLY: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Amendment and Relief from
Judgment is granted in part and denied in part. 2
Case 1:00-cv-06193-LJO-SMS
Document 151
Filed 01/30/2006
Page 3 of 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
2. 3.
The judgment entered on September 28, 2005 is vacated. Defendants are granted partial summary judgment in
connection with plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 4. This action is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for
further proceedings in connection with plaintiff's claim of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 668554 January 27, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?