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)
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?