Anderson v. Kelso, et al.

Filing 62

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/22/12 RECOMMENDING that 28 and 30 Motions for injunctive relief be denied as moot. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 21 days.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAMUEL ANDERSON,

11
12

Plaintiff,

No. 2: 12-cv-0261 MCE KJN P

vs.

13

MATTHEW TATE, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action

17

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions for injunctive

18

relief filed February 23, 2012 and March 19, 2012. In both motions, plaintiff alleges that his pain

19

medication was improperly discontinued. On June 14, 2012, the Office of the Attorney General,

20

by special appearance, filed a response to plaintiff’s motions. For the following reasons, the

21

undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief be denied as moot.

22

The Office of the Attorney General argues that plaintiff’s motions for injunctive

23

relief should be denied as moot because he is now receiving pain medication. Attached as an

24

exhibit to the response by the Office of the Attorney General is the declaration of D. Swingle, the

25

Chief Medical Officer at High Desert Prison (“HDSP”), where plaintiff is housed. In the

26

declaration, D. Swingle states:
1

1
2

2. I reviewed Samuel Anderson’s medical file on June 4 and 5, 2012. After
reviewing the file, I arranged for Mr. Anderson to meet with his primary care
provider on June 8, 2012. The purpose of the meeting was to specifically address
Mr. Anderson’s pain and to decide on a course of action to manage his pain.

3
4
5
6
7

3. Dr. Windsor is Mr. Anderson’s current primary care provider. She evaluated
him on June 8, 2012. She determined that Mr. Anderson does in fact suffer from
pain and recommended prescribing Tramadol. No other pain medication was
recommended by Dr. Windsor.
4. I approved Dr. Windsor’s recommendation of prescribing Mr. Anderson
Tramadol, which is a non-formulary drug, as part of his pain treatment. Mr.
Anderson will be given 50 mg per day for 30 days. He will be able to refill his
Tramadol prescription 11 times, so it will last for one full year.

8
9
10

5. Mr. Anderson has been scheduled to be seen by his primary care provider
within 30 days of his June 8, 2012 evaluation. During this follow-up visit, the
primary care provider will determine whether the Tramadol has been effective and
determine what, if any, other pain management tools will be necessary or
appropriate.

11
12
13

6. Mr. Anderson is in pain. Tramadol is the recommended treatment and is
appropriate. Morphine and Lyrica are not appropriate at this time. Mr.
Anderson’s pain will again be evaluated in a follow-up visit with his primary care
provider, and she will determine whether additional medication is necessary at
that time.

14
15
16
17

7. Pain treatment is a process that often requires adjustments in order to be
effective. Mr. Anderson has been on a different combination of pain medications
to treat his pain throughout the years of his custody, and will likely have new or
different combinations in the future. It was not inappropriate for the pain
management committee to discontinue Mr. Anderson’s Tramadol on February 28,
2012. However, it is again appropriate at this time to prescribe Mr. Anderson
Tramadol for the pain he is currently experiencing.

18
19
20

(Dkt. No. 58-1 at 1-2.)
Plaintiff has been prescribed Tramadol for pain and his primary care provider will

21

follow-up in 30 days to determine whether the Tramadol has been effective. Because plaintiff

22

has received the requested relief, his motions for injunctive relief are moot.

23
24

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motions for
injunctive relief (Dkt. Nos. 28 and 30) be denied as moot.

25

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

26

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty2

1

one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

2

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

3

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

4

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

5

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

6

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

7

DATED: June 22, 2012

8
9

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11

an261.pi

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