El v. Martel

Filing 14

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/5/2017 DENYING 12 Motion for Reconsideration; AFFIRMING the Magistrate Judge's 8 Order dismissing the plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERIC EL,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-0463 KJM CKD P
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

MICHAEL MARTEL,
Defendant.

16
17

On May 8, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s

18

order filed April 27, 2017, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Under E.D.

19

Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or

20

contrary to law.” Id. Upon review of the file, the court finds the magistrate judge’s ruling was

21

not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

22

Plaintiff names only one defendant in his complaint, Michael Martel, the Warden of

23

California Health Care Facility. Plaintiff alleges that on July 6, 2016, he suffered serious “near

24

fatal injury” when he fell off a “wood transfer board used as a bridge to get a person from his bed

25

to his wheel chair.” ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff alleges that there were no instructions for safe use

26

provided with the board, that “none of the staff” showed plaintiff how to use the board, none of

27

the staff “wanted to even assist the Plaintiff when he asked for help” in using the board, and no

28

staff responded to the emergency button when plaintiff pushed it for help before he fell. Id.

1

Consistent with the legal principles set forth in the magistrate judge’s order, in order to state a

2

claim for relief, plaintiff must allege what defendant Martel did or did not do that contributed to

3

the alleged constitutional violation. In the alternative, plaintiff must name as defendants the staff

4

members who allegedly failed to help him safely use the wood transfer board and describe what

5

those defendants did or did not do that contributed to the alleged constitutional violation. The

6

magistrate judge has properly given plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.

7

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for

8

reconsideration is denied, and upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed April

9

27, 2017, is affirmed.

10

DATED: July 5, 2017.

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2