Norwood v. Hubbard

Filing 144

ORDER DIRECTING Plaintiff to Respond on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by 9/16/2011; ORDER GRANTING 136 Plaintiff's Motion to Extend the Dispositive Motion Deadline to 9/18/2011; ORDER GRANTING 134 Plaintiff's Request for a Telephonic Status Conference; and ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Remaining Requests and Motions for Miscellaneous Relief (Docs. 132 , 134 , 135 , 136 ), signed by Senior Judge Stephen M. McNamee on 7/13/2011. Telephonic Status Conference set for 7/28/2011 at 01:30 PM before Senior Judge Stephen M. McNamee. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

Kenneth Wilson Norwood,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

vs.
Suzan Hubbard, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:07-CV-00889-SMM
ORDER

This case concerns an assault on Plaintiff Kenneth Norwood (“Plaintiff”) by a fellow
inmate at California State Prison-Corcoran (“Corcoran”) on September 11, 2006. In his Third
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges two Eighth Amendment claims against prison officials:
(1) failure to protect against Defendant Stephen Carter (Carter), and (2) deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs against Carter, and Defendants Brandon, Canedo,
Frescura, Gonzales, Keener, Koelher, Morales, Pascua, Price, and Maldonado
(“Defendants”). (Doc. 33). On November 29, 2010, all Defendants except Carter filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment concerning the deliberate indifference claim against them.
(Doc. 90). Plaintiff was initially ordered to respond by January 1, 2011. (Doc. 93). However,
in the interests of justice, the Court has granted Plaintiff’s several requests for extensions to
the original response deadline as Plaintiff attempted to obtain additional discovery. (Docs.
98, 118).
Plaintiff specifically sought discovery of medical records from his treatment at
University Medical Center in Fresno, California, and an investigative report of the September
11, 2006 assault compiled by California Investigative Services (the “CIS Report”). Pursuant

1

to Plaintiff’s motions, the Court issued subpoenas duces tecum which were served on both

2

parties. (Docs. 86, 102). University Medical Center responded, (Doc. 113), but the California

3

Department of Corrections (“CDCR”) moved to quash Plaintiff’s subpoena, claiming the

4

information in the reports was confidential and exempt from disclosure under the common

5

law privilege of official information, (Doc. 115). The Court denied CDCR’s Motion to

6

Quash, but granted an in camera review of the CIS Report. (Doc. 128). Concurrently, the

7

Court extended Plaintiff’s response deadline again, giving Plaintiff with 60 days to file his

8

response after the Court’s determination on the in camera review. (Id.).

9

The Court has completed its review of the subpoenaed documents CIS Report and

10

attendant documents and finds that they contain no evidence relevant to Plaintiff’s claims for

11

deliberate indifference claims against the moving Defendants. To succeed on a claim of

12

deliberate indifference to medical needs, Plaintiff must show: (1) “‘serious medical need’ by

13

demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant

14

injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) that Defendants’ response

15

“was deliberately indifferent to the potential harm” – that Defendants had a culpable state of

16

mind and their actions caused Plaintiff harm. Jett v.Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.

17

2006) (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1991)); Farmer v.

18

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).

19

The CIS Report contains evidence that may be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims against

20

Defendant Carter, and at least one account of actions taken by some Defendants before the

21

assault. But there is no evidence within the CIS report that would assist Plaintiff in showing:

22

(1) Defendants’ failed to provide Plaintiff medical attention in a timely manner, (2) the

23

failure resulted in further injury or “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” or (3)

24

Defendants acted deliberately. Thus, the Court will not order the disclosure of any portion

25

of the CIS Report at this time.

26

//

27

//

28
-2-

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff must respond to Defendant's Motion for

3

Summary Judgment, (Doc. 90), by Friday, September 16, 2011. The Court will grant no

4

further extensions to this deadline.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED discovery is closed with regard to Plaintiff’s

6

deliberate indifference claims against Defendants Brandon, Canedo, Frescura, Gonzales,

7

Keener, Koelher, Morales, Pascua, Price, and Maldonado.

8
9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion to Extend the
Dispositive Motion Deadline to September 18, 2011. (Doc. 136).

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff's request for a telephonic status

11

conference, and setting a conference for Monday July 28, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. (Doc. 134).

12

Defense counsel shall initiate a conference call and secure Plaintiff on the line before

13

telephoning Judge McNamee’s chambers at [phone], no later than 1:25 p.m., on July

14

28, 2011.

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff's remaining requests and motions

16

for miscellaneous relief. (Doc. 132, 134-36). The Court has conducted its in camera review,

17

and will order disclosure of appropriate documents in a timely fashion.

18

DATED this 13th day of July, 2011.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-