Mora v. California Correctional Center
Filing
74
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/26/2018 ORDERING that the 64 Findings and Recommendations are NOT ADOPTED. This matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ERIC MORA,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:14-cv-0581 KJM DB P
v.
ORDER
EATON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
17
18
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided
19
by to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
On June 27, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were
21
served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings
22
and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendants have filed objections to
23
the findings and recommendations and plaintiff has filed responses to those objections.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
24
25
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court
26
declines to adopt the findings and recommendations and refers the matter back to the assigned
27
magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.
28
/////
1
1
The magistrate judge finds that summary judgment should be granted on plaintiff’s
2
negligence claims in favor of defendants Powell, Wooten, and Nweke. ECF No. 64 at 23-24.
3
The finding is supported by cases cited in the findings and recommendations. Id. However, with
4
respect to the Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Eaton, Gomer, Sanderson, Leslie and
5
Kremer, it is not clear whether the magistrate judge analyzed the claims under the proper
6
standard. As noted in the findings and recommendations, delay of medical care can constitute
7
“deliberate indifference” under the standard for Eighth Amendment violations. ECF No. 64 at 15
8
(citing Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 393-394 (9th Cir. 1988)). However, to show
9
deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must show “a state of mind more blameworthy than
10
negligence,” which “requires ‘more than ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner’s interests or
11
safety.’” Id. (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994)). It is not clear whether the
12
magistrate judge applied this standard or the lower standard for negligence when analyzing
13
plaintiff’s Eight Amendment claims. See, e.g., ECF No. 64 at 17-18 (denying summary judgment
14
for defendant on the Eighth Amendment claim against Eaton because “[t]he fact that Eaton was
15
unaware that plaintiff was suffering retinal detachment does not meant that a reasonable
16
registered nurse in his position would not have sought immediate help from a doctor for
17
plaintiff’s sudden loss of vision . . . .”).
18
Additionally, it appears the magistrate judge inadvertently cited to ECF No. 40, referring
19
to it as “plaintiff’s sworn testimony given at his deposition.” See ECF No. 64 at 8; see also ECF
20
No. 40 (Order Re Consent or Request for Reassignment).
21
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
22
1.
The findings and recommendations filed June 27, 2018 are not adopted; and
23
2.
This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further
24
25
proceedings consistent with this order.
DATED: September 26, 2018.
26
27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28
2
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?