Eric Wheeler v. Aliceson et al

Filing 122

ORDER Adopting 115 Findings and Recommendations to Grant in Part and Deny in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/14/16. L. Goss (LPT at SATF - Corcoran), V. Trevino (M.S.W. at SATF - Corcoran), R. Coffin (Chief of Mental Health at SATF-Corcoran) and R. Garcia (M.S.W. at SATF - Corcoran) Terminated. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERIC WHEELER,

12
13
14

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT IN PART
AND DENY IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.
K. ALICESON, et al.,

15

(ECF No. 115)

Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

19

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against

20

Defendants Garcia, Goss, Trevino, Isira, and Coffin on Plaintiff’s First Amendment

21

retaliation claim, and against Defendant Isira on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical

22

indifference and state law negligence claims. The matter was referred to a United States

23

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United

24

States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

25

On

September

30,

2016,

the

Magistrate

Judge

issued

findings

and

26

recommendations to grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion for summary

27

judgment. (ECF No. 115.) Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended that

28

1

summary judgment be granted Plaintiff’s retaliation and state law negligence claims, but

2

denied on his Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim against Defendant Isira.

3

Defendant Isira objected to the recommendation to deny summary judgment on

4

the Eighth Amendment claim. (ECF No. 117.) Plaintiff responded to Isira’s objections.

5

(ECF No. 118.) Defendant Isira points to evidence indicating that he did not act with

6

deliberate indifference toward Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff has presented contrary

7

evidence indicating that Defendant acted purposefully and maliciously against Plaintiff.

8

The Magistrate Judge properly concluded that such disputes of fact cannot be resolved

9

on summary judgment. Nor can the Court conclude that Defendant is entitled to qualified

10

immunity where the evidence raises an issue of fact regarding whether Defendant

11

purposefully and maliciously denied Plaintiff appropriate care. Defendant Isira’s

12

objections do not raise an issue of fact or law under the findings and recommendations.

13

Plaintiff objected to the recommendation to grant summary judgment on the

14

remaining claims. (ECF No. 120.) Defendants filed a response. (ECF No. 121.) Plaintiff’s

15

objections are lengthy and reiterate arguments raised in his opposition to the motion for

16

summary judgment. The Court concludes that these arguments do not raise an issue of

17

fact or law under the findings and recommendations.

18

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has

19

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

20

Court finds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and by

21

proper analysis.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Court adopts in full the findings and recommendations filed September
30, 2016 (ECF No. 115);
2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 74) is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
a. Summary judgment is granted in favor of all Defendants on
Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim,
2

1

b. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendant Isira on
Plaintiff’s state law negligence claim, and

2

c. Summary judgement is denied on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

3
4

claim against Defendant Isira.
3. The matter will proceed solely on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim

5
6
7
8
9

against Defendant Isira for inadequate medical care.
4.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

December 14, 2016

Dated:

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
10

5.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3