Turner v. Nolan et al

Filing 47

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. The deputy clerk hereby certifies that on 12/19/2017 a copy of this order was served by sending it via first-class mail to the address of each non-CM/ECF user listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 12/19/2017. (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EDWIN D. TURNER, AI4237,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

9

v.

10

L. NOLAN, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-01486-CRB (PR)

Defendant(s).

12
13

On December 12, 2017, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and

14

temporary restraining order (TRO) compelling defendants to: “‘1) [r]e-prescribe petitioner his

15

medicine “Atenolol” witch [sic] was prescribed and ordered by medical physician A. Dorfan for

16

petitioner[’]s heart palpitations/mild pulmonary hypertension,’” and “‘2) [m]ake every reasonable

17

effort to treat petitioner[’]s other related heart problems as diagnosed and noted in petitioner[’]s

18

echocardiogram.’” ECF No. 45 at 2 (citations omitted).

19

On December 13, 2017, plaintiff filed a late reply to defendants’ opposition to his motion

20

for preliminary injunction and TRO. The reply was late because defendants served their

21

opposition on plaintiff at the wrong address. The reply and exhibits confirm that plaintiff’s

22

primary care physicians discontinued Dr. Dorfman’s prescription of Atenolol for plaintiff because

23

they do not believe that Atenolol is medically indicated or necessary for plaintiff. The reply and

24
25
26
27
28

exhibits also confirm that the cardiologist who recommended and reviewed plaintiff’s treadmill
test and echocardiogram in response to plaintiff’s complaints of palpitations and chest pain
concluded that medication for chest pain was not in order. But the cardiologist requested
repeating the echocardiogram at Tri-City Medical Center because he suspected that the test was
not properly done locally – “there is a report of the left ventricle being ‘normal,’ but the ejection

1

fraction is abno
ormal.” Pl.’s Reply (ECF No. 46) Ex E at 1. In the cardiolo
s
F
x.
n
ogist’s opinio “[t]his
on,

2

wo
ould be very crucial in making the ap
m
ppropriate ca
ardiac diagno in this p
osis
patient.” Id. at 1-2.

3

ing
,
rders that de
efendants sho cause, w
ow
within 14
Good cause appeari therefor, the court or

4

day of the date of this order, why they should not be ordered t refer plain to Tri-C Medical
ys
y
to
ntiff
City
l

5

Cen for a rep 2-dimen
nter
peat
nsional echo
ocardiogram and cardiolo evaluati
ogy
ion. Plaintif may file a
ff

6

rep to defend
ply
dants’ respon within 14 days of the date the res
nse
4
e
sponse is file
ed.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: Decemb 19, 2017
ber
7
___
__________
___________
__________
________
CH
HARLES R. BREYER
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2