Canada v. Hamkar
Filing
42
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 03/10/17 ordering Plaintiffs motions and requests for an Olsen review 36 , 37 , and 40 are denied. Plaintiffs motion for an extension of time 41 is granted. Plaintiff is granted forty-five days from the date of this order in which to file and serve his opposition. No further extensions of time will be granted absent substantial cause. Within fourteen days from the date of this order, counsel for defendant shall file a status report as set forth above. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RONALD LEE CANADA,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
No. 2:14-cv-2990 WBS KJN P
ORDER
HAMKAR,
15
Defendant.
16
17
This action proceeds on plaintiff’s original complaint, in which he claims defendant Dr.
18
Hamkar was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth
19
Amendment. Despite the prior order that no further extensions of time would be granted (ECF
20
No. 33), on March 6, 2017, plaintiff filed another request for an extension of time to file and
21
serve an opposition to defendant’s September 20, 2016 motion for summary judgment. As
22
discussed below, plaintiff’s motion is partially granted.
23
Background
24
Plaintiff’s complaint was signed on December 6, 2014, and defendant filed an answer. On
25
April 28, 2016, discovery was continued to July 1, 2016, and the pretrial motions deadline was
26
continued to September 23, 2016. Plaintiff was deposed on May 24, 2016. On September 20,
27
2016, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which included the requirements for
28
1
2
opposing a motion for summary judgment.
On November 14, 2016, plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition was noted, and plaintiff
3
was ordered to file an opposition within thirty days, and that his failure to do so would be deemed
4
as consent to have the (a) action dismissed for lack of prosecution; and (b) action dismissed based
5
on plaintiff’s failure to comply with these rules and a court order. Such failure shall result in a
6
recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
7
(ECF No. 26.)
8
9
On December 2, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time noting his difficulties
in obtaining his legal materials due to his transfer from the California Medical Facility to
10
California State Prison, Sacramento (“CSP-SAC”). On December 7, 2016, plaintiff was granted
11
an extension of 45 days in which to file the opposition, but defendant was directed to file a status
12
report concerning plaintiff’s access to his legal materials. On January 5, 2017, plaintiff notified
13
the court that he would be attending his classification committee on January 1, 2017, and put up
14
for another transfer. Plaintiff claimed he had been informed that his legal materials had arrived,
15
but he did not yet have possession of them. (ECF No. 32 at 1.) On January 6, 2017, counsel for
16
defendant filed a declaration stating that on January 5, 2017, a property officer attempted to
17
deliver three boxes of mail, letters, miscellaneous papers and books to plaintiff, but after plaintiff
18
reviewed the boxes, he told the officer he was missing a black folder, and that Salinas Valley
19
State Prison was “playing games.” (ECF No. 30 at 2.) Plaintiff refused receipt of the property.
20
(ECF No. 30 at 2.)
21
On January 10, 2017, the court recounted the nature of plaintiff’s claim, noted that
22
plaintiff may review and obtain copies of his medical records by following prison procedures, and
23
reminded plaintiff that because the instant action only pertains to his medical care, plaintiff was
24
personally involved and aware of the care he alleges he received and did not receive. (ECF No.
25
33.) In an abundance of caution, because the operative pleading recited plaintiff’s claims against
26
Dr. Hamkar, the court provided plaintiff with a copy of his complaint, and granted him sixty days
27
in which to file his opposition. Plaintiff was warned that failure to file an opposition would result
28
in the dismissal of this action, as set forth in the November 14, 2016 order, and admonished that
2
1
no further extensions of time would be granted. (ECF No. 33 at 2-3.)
2
On February 15, 2017, plaintiff filed a request for in forma pauperis affidavits and
3
medical and mental health Olsen1 review, listing three other cases in addition to the instant case.
4
(ECF No. 36 at 1.) Plaintiff provided copies of health care services request forms requesting an
5
Olsen review, dated January 2 and 17, 2017, February 6 and 10, 2017. (ECF No. 36 at 5-9, 11.)
6
On February 21, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for Olsen review. (ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff
7
claims that on February 15, 2017, medical staff provided plaintiff with a CDCR 7385
8
authorization for release of protected health information to fill out for an Olsen review. Later that
9
day, plaintiff was given a copy of the request. However, during medication pass out, plaintiff was
10
not given any Olsen review paperwork. Plaintiff claims that staff falsely documented the form
11
stating he was given the Olsen review paperwork cell side, but that “never happened.” (ECF No.
12
37 at 3.) Plaintiff states that prison policy entitles inmates to sign and date the copy after
13
obtaining the Olsen review to prove receipt, but plaintiff never signed for such review. Plaintiff
14
claims that prison staff do not want him to have access to his Olsen review. (Id.)
15
Plaintiff provided a copy of the authorization for release of protected health information
16
which was signed by plaintiff on February 15, 2017. (ECF No. 37 at 7-8.) Plaintiff requested
17
records from June to August of 2015, electromyography and nerve conduction test results, and
18
psychotherapy notes 2014-16 from clinician M. Hunter. (ECF No. 37 at 7.) The release form
19
bears no mark confirming delivery of the requested medical records to plaintiff. (ECF No. 37 at
20
7-8.) However, the form warns the inmate that requests for psychotherapy notes require a
21
separate CDCR 7385 form and “may not be combined with any other request for health care
22
records.” (ECF No. 37 at 6.)
23
Plaintiff’s Health Care Services Request form dated February 12, 2017, was completed by
24
a registered nurse who noted plaintiff was given a copy of the Olsen review on February 15, 2017
25
at 9:15, cell side. (ECF No. 37 at 8.)
26
27
28
On February 24, 2017, plaintiff filed a notice stating that he was told to pack because he
1
An Olsen review is an administrative procedure which allows an inmate to review his central
file. Johnson v. Echano, 2016 WL 4239414, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2016).
3
1
will be transferring to a different prison, and confirming that he continues to submit requests for
2
medical and mental health Olsen review. (ECF No. 38.) In his March 2, 2017 letter to the clerk,
3
plaintiff notified the court that he refused to get on the bus for transfer because prison officials
4
refused to pack his property. (ECF No. 39.)
5
On March 2, 2017, plaintiff renewed his motion for Olsen review, providing a copy of his
6
February 27, 2017 request for 602 appeal concerning the requested Olsen review. (ECF No. 40 at
7
3.) Plaintiff claims he needs copies of the results from an electromyography and nerve
8
conduction (EMG/NCS) dated June 12, 2015, and August 14, 2015, completed by Dr. Friend, and
9
progress notes from previous assigned clinician, CSW M. Hunter, 2014-16 documents, because
10
11
they are relevant to plaintiff’s opposition. (ECF No. 40 at 4.)
On March 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a request for extension of time; because of his recent
12
transfer to Kern Valley State Prison, plaintiff allegedly has none of his legal materials.
13
Discussion
14
Requests/Motions for Olsen Review
15
Plaintiff is advised that discovery is closed. On January 10, 2017, the court suggested
16
plaintiff review his medical records as an alternative to enable plaintiff to prepare his opposition
17
before he received his legal materials. Indeed, in his pending request for extension of time,
18
plaintiff complains that he was separated from his legal materials during his recent transfer,
19
implying that plaintiff was in possession of his legal materials immediately before his recent
20
transfer.
21
Moreover, plaintiff has not filed a motion to defer consideration of the motion for
22
summary judgment under Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and plaintiff alleges
23
no facts demonstrating he would be entitled to such deferral. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges
24
that Dr. Hamkar was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs on April 23,
25
2014, when he told the doctor that plaintiff was having chronic neck and lower back pain and the
26
Tylenol was not working, and the doctor allegedly responded that he did not care, that he would
27
not put plaintiff back on the medication that works, and that because plaintiff is considered a
28
mental health inmate, plaintiff would need to get out of the mental health program before the
4
1
doctor could adequately treat plaintiff. (ECF No. 1 at 6.)
2
In the motion for summary judgment, Dr. Hamkar declares that medical records reflect
3
that he saw plaintiff three times: November 25, 2013, December 3, 2013, and April 23, 2014
4
(ECF No. 25 at 22-23), and plaintiff was provided copies of the reports from these examinations
5
(ECF No. 25 at 26-28). In all of plaintiff’s filings, he fails to explain how electromyography and
6
nerve conduction studies performed on June 12, 2015, and August 14, 2015, over a year after Dr.
7
Hamkar’s treatment of plaintiff would rebut Dr. Hamkar’s motion. Similarly, plaintiff does not
8
address how psychotherapy notes from clinician M. Hunter from 2014 to 16 would be relevant or
9
rebut Dr. Hamkar’s motion.
For all these reasons, plaintiff’s pending motions and requests for Olsen reviews are
10
11
denied.
12
Request for Further Extension of Time
13
It is unfortunate that prison officials again transferred plaintiff, for we are now back where
14
we were in December: plaintiff, recently transferred, is again allegedly separated from his legal
15
materials. Plaintiff is unable to oppose the pending motion without possession of his legal
16
materials. Thus, counsel for defendant is directed to file a status report addressing the status of
17
plaintiff’s legal materials, including whether plaintiff now has possession of his legal materials
18
and, if not, when he will obtain such possession. Any efforts defense counsel could make to
19
ensure plaintiff has possession of his legal materials, would be appreciated.
20
The court has no alternative but to grant plaintiff a further extension to oppose the motion.
21
However, absent substantial cause, no further extensions of time will be granted. Plaintiff is
22
cautioned that, as set forth in the court’s November 14, 2016 order, failure to file a timely
23
opposition will result in an order granting the motion for summary judgment.
24
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
25
1. Plaintiff’s motions and requests for an Olsen review (ECF Nos. 36, 37, 40) are denied.
26
2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 41) is granted.
27
3. Plaintiff is granted forty-five days from the date of this order in which to file and serve
28
his opposition. No further extensions of time will be granted absent substantial cause.
5
1
4. Within fourteen days from the date of this order, counsel for defendant shall file a
2
status report as set forth above.
3
Dated: March 10, 2017
4
5
/cana2990.36sec
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?