Chan v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 88

MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 10/6/2011 ORDERING that the Court finds oral argument is necessary to reach a decision on Plaintiff's 56 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Hearin g on this matter is hereby set before this Court at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 3, 2011, in Courtroom 7. Not later than Thursday, October 20, 2011, the parties are to submit simultaneous supplemental briefing, not to exceed fifteen (15) pages, on the issues as directed in this order.(Duong, D)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MADY CHAN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:09-cv-02006-MCE-GGH v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ----oo0oo---- 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed 19 this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On July 5, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and 23 recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which 24 contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 25 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 26 days. 27 recommendations. 28 /// Defendants have filed objections to the findings and 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 2 § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de 3 novo review of this case. 4 file, the Court finds oral argument is necessary to reach a 5 decision on Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 6 and Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”) (ECF No. 56). 7 this matter is hereby set before this Court at 2:00 p.m. on 8 Thursday, November 3, 2011, in Courtroom 7. 9 Thursday, October 20, 2011, the parties are to submit Having carefully reviewed the entire Hearing on Not later than 10 simultaneous supplemental briefing, not to exceed fifteen (15) 11 pages, on the following issues: 12 1. 13 The relevance of the Kaiser Consent Decree to Plaintiff’s claims and to his instant Motion; 14 2. Whether the Sacramento County Main Jail is generally 15 required by the Eighth Amendment or the Kaiser Consent 16 Decree to provide inmates (short-term or long-term) 17 with root canal therapy; 18 3. Whether, under the specific circumstances of 19 Plaintiff’s case, the Sacramento County Main Jail is 20 required by the Eighth Amendment or the Kaiser Consent 21 Decree to provide Plaintiff with root canal therapy; 22 4. The cause of Plaintiff’s injuries (i.e., whether the 23 use of temporary fillings, the failure to provide root 24 canal therapy followed by permanent fillings or some 25 other factor caused Plaintiff’s injuries); and 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 5. Whether root canal therapy followed by permanent 2 fillings could have saved Plaintiff’s teeth at the time 3 of initial treatment or could still save his teeth now. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 6, 2011 6 7 8 _____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?