Wheeler v. Alison et al

Filing 238

ORDER ADOPTING 230 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DENYING 179 Defendant Mui's Motion for Summary Judgment signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/31/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

ERIC WHEELER,
12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

vs.
KATHLEEN ALISON, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12cv00861 LJO DLB PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
DEFENDANT MUI’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Document 230)

Plaintiff Eric Wheeler (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18
19
20
21
22

pauperis in this civil rights action.
On December 5, 2014, Defendant Mui filed a motion for summary judgment. The matter
was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Rule 302.

23

On July 17, 2015, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations that Defendant Mui’s

24

motion be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained

25

notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. Defendant Mui filed

26

objections on August 14, 2015. Plaintiff filed his reply on August 27, 2015.

27
28

1

1
2
3

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted
a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Defendant’s

4

objections and Plaintiff’s reply, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are

5

supported by the record and proper analysis.

6
7

In the Magistrate Judge’s analysis, he explained why Defendant’s causation argument
failed given Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment allegations of a complete denial of care:

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Defendant Mui’s argument is misplaced under the facts of this case. While he is
correct that even gross negligence does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment
violation, his argument is not persuasive given Plaintiff’s allegation of a complete denial
of treatment. His argument attempts to overlook this, and suggests that even though he
did not provide treatment, Plaintiff ultimately received appropriate care for a nondisplaced fracture, i.e., bed rest and pain medication. Klein Decl. ¶ 5(c). Again, Plaintiff
does not claim that Defendant Mui provided improper treatment for his leg fracture, but
rather that Defendant Mui refused to provide any treatment. In other words, the issue is
whether Defendant Mui was deliberately indifferent when he refused care, not whether
the fact that Plaintiff was coincidentally on best rest and pain medication for his jaw
fracture met the standard of care.
ECF No. 230, at 6.
In his objections, Defendant Mui generally repeats his causation argument and this does
not present grounds for rejecting the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.

19

Defendant Mui also argues that his circumstances are similar to those of Defendant

20

Neubarth, and that the Court should grant summary judgment in the same way. However,

21

Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendant Neubarth did not involve solely a complete denial of

22
23
24

treatment. Defendant Mui acknowledges as much when he states that Plaintiff’s claim against
Defendant Neubarth was based, “in part,” on a failure to provide treatment. ECF No. 233, at 8.
The Magistrate Judge’s explanation remains correct:

25
26
27
28

In his reply, Defendant Mui characterizes Plaintiff’s argument as a difference of
opinion regarding treatment. This characterization, however, misstates Plaintiff’s
2

1

argument. As the Court explained above, this case involves allegations of a complete
denial of care. A difference of opinion assumes that some level of treatment was offered
in the first instance.

2
3

ECF No. 230, at 7.
4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

6

and

7
8

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on July 17, 2015, are adopted in full;

2.
Defendant Mui’s motion for summary judgment (Document 179) is DENIED.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:

10

August 31, 2015

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

1

The Findings and Recommendations regarding the remaining Defendants’ motion for summary judgment are
pending, and Plaintiff has been granted an extension of time within which to file objections. The Court will set this
matter for trial once the pending motion for summary judgment is decided.
3