Nicholson v. Medina et al
Filing
64
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on March 30, 2013. Granting in part and denying in part 54 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting in part 58 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for defendant Shaw; refer to ADR and Pro Bono Coordinator for identification of counsel to represent plaintiff for the purposes of trial; and case is set for status and trial setting for May 30, 2013 at 2:30. (Andrews, P)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
ELDRED NICHOLSON,
Plaintiff,
11
vs.
12
13
No. 2:10-cv-1425 KJM EFB P
D. MEDINA, et al.,
Defendants.
14
ORDER
/
15
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action
16
17
seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
18
Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On January 22, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,
19
20
which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to
21
the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days from the date the
22
findings and recommendations were served. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and
23
recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Local Rule
24
25
304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file,
26
/////
1
1
the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the
2
proper analysis, except as discussed below.
3
The magistrate judge found that on June 25, 2009, plaintiff did not inform Shaw
4
and Medina that he could not take ibuprofen because of his ulcer, noting that plaintiff did not say
5
anything about his ulcer until August 5, 2009. ECF No. 58 at 3 n.6. In his verified objections,
6
however, plaintiff says he in fact told Medina and Shaw about his ulcer on June 25, 2009. ECF
7
No. 62 at 4 ¶ 14. This allegation also is contained in plaintiff’s verified complaint, which the
8
court must consider in opposition to summary judgment. ECF No. 1 at 11 ¶ 16; Jones v. Blanas,
9
393 F.3d 918, 923 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff’s objections maintain that his case against Medina
10
alone should proceed. ECF 62 at 2-3. Accordingly, the facts are in dispute on the question
11
whether Medina purposefully chose ibuprofen in conscious disregard of plaintiff’s health. It
12
does appear, as the magistrate judge observes, that plaintiff had been taking aspirin, which also
13
has the potential of irritating or causing ulcers, but there is no evidence in the record addressing
14
the effects of combining two such medications for someone with ulcers. As the administration
15
of contraindicated medication may be evidence of deliberate indifference, summary judgment as
16
to Medina is denied on this issue.
17
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
18
1. The findings and recommendations filed January 22, 2013, are adopted in part;
19
2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dckt. No. 54) is granted on all
20
claims alleged against Shaw in light of plaintiff’s concession, and on the claim
21
that defendant Medina unreasonably delayed in treating plaintiff’s wrist;
22
3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied as to the claim that
23
Medina prescribed ibuprofen for plaintiff;
24
//////
25
/////
26
/////
2
1
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for defendant Shaw;
2
5. Because plaintiff’s remaining claim warrants appointment of counsel for the
3
trial that will be set, the court refers this case to the court’s ADR and Pro
4
Bono Coordinator, Sujean Park, for identification of counsel to represent
5
plaintiff for the purposes of trial; and
6
7
8
6. The case is set for status and trial setting before the undersigned on May 30,
2013 at 2:30 p.m.
DATED: March 30, 2013.
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?