Johnson v. Nguyen et al
Filing
59
ORDER directing Defendants to file supplement in accordance with the terms of the attached order on or before 8/12/2014, to make available to Plaintiff video footage from 7/28/2014, which depicts Plaintiff falling, if it exists, and to transport Plaintiff to the RMF for Dr. Long's next-scheduled monthly clinic. Please see attached for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 7/29/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON,
7
8
9
Plaintiff,
12
ORDER
v.
A. NGUYEN, et. al.,
10
11
3:12-cv-00538-MMD-WGC
Defendants.
The court issues the instant order in connection with the hearing held on Plaintiff's
Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 41) on July 28, 2014.
13
After thoroughly reviewing the record, including the briefing from the parties, the
14
medical records that the court ordered Defendants to submit1, and hearing argument from the
15
parties, the court has determined that the record needs to be supplemented before the court can
16
issue a report and recommendation on Plaintiff's motion. Therefore, Defendants are directed to
17
file a supplemental memorandum in support of their opposition to Plaintiff's motion, including
18
the following:
19
(A) A copy of the June 20, 2014 physical examination form, referenced by Dr. Koehn at
20
the hearing, which was not submitted with Plaintiff's medical records. Plaintiff shall also be
21
given an opportunity to view this record by sending a request to the warden;
22
(B) A discussion regarding the administrative regulations, operational procedures,
23
medical directives or other Nevada Department of Corrections guidelines which address the topic
24
of the dissemination of ambulatory aids to inmates for medical purposes, the procedures for
25
26
27
28
1
No medical records (or declarations) were submitted with Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion.
(See Doc. # 44.) Instead, the court ordered Defendants to submit Plaintiff's relevant medical orders and also
provided them with an opportunity to file a declaration on behalf of Plaintiff's treating medical provider(s) at Ely
State Prison to address the contentions made in Plaintiff's motion. (See Doc. # 52.) Defendants submitted the
medical records under seal (Doc. # 55); however, as is discussed, infra, at least one particularly pertinent record of a
recent physical examination of Plaintiff by Dr. Koehn was not included in this submission.
1
assessing whether an inmate will be given such an aid, as well as any document that discusses
2
safety and security issues to be taken into account in the assessment of whether an inmate will
3
receive such a device. Such documents shall be accompanied by authenticating declarations;
4
(C) Defendants shall address the specific safety and security risks posed by the issuance
5
of a cane or wheelchair to Plaintiff. This shall include a discussion of Plaintiff's particular
6
housing classification and the risks he would pose to the institution, as opposed to a generalized
7
description of the safety and security risks that may result from the issuance of these ambulatory
8
aids. The discussion should be accompanied by a declaration made by a person with knowledge
9
to speak on this subject;
10
(D) Defendants shall address Plaintiff's arguments that he: (1) needs a cane or wheelchair
11
to get around his cell; (2) to get to the showers; and (3) to be able to get to the recreational yard
12
by himself;
13
(E) A declaration authenticating the video footage submitted to the court in connection
14
with Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's request for a hearing on his motion. (See Doc. # 58-1).
15
Defendants are also directed to afford Plaintiff an opportunity to view the video footage
16
submitted to the court by sending a request to the warden.
17
This supplement shall be filed and served on or before August 12, 2014.
18
Defendants shall also ascertain whether video footage exists of Plaintiff from July 28,
19
2014, which depicts Plaintiff falling, as Plaintiff represented at the hearing. If such footage
20
exists, Defendants are to make it available for Plaintiff to view by sending a request to the
21
warden. Defendants may file a motion for relief from this portion of the order if they have a good
22
faith contention it would impose an unreasonable burden to conduct a search for such footage.
23
Finally, at the conclusion of the hearing the court proposed that Plaintiff be referred to
24
Dr. Long, an orthopedist who has contracted with NDOC to provide medical evaluation and care
25
for inmates, for an evaluation of his complaints of back and knee pain and to render an opinion
26
as to whether an ambulatory aid such as a cane or wheelchair (as Plaintiff has requested) is
27
medically necessary. Dr. Koehn represented to the court that Dr. Long holds a monthly clinic at
28
NDOC's Regional Medical Facility (RMF) and that there is a weekly bus that takes inmates from
-2-
1
NDOC's various institutions to the RMF for medical care. Plaintiff agreed to this proposal and
2
recognized that Dr. Long's evaluation results may be used as evidence in this case, whether they
3
are in his favor or adverse to his claims. The Deputy Attorney General Representing Defendants
4
stated that Defendants felt another examination was unnecessary, but nonetheless agreed to refer
5
Plaintiff to Dr. Long. As such, Defendants are directed to transport Plaintiff to the RMF for
6
Dr. Long's next-scheduled monthly clinic. Defendants shall then provide the results of the
7
examination to the court within two weeks of the date the examination takes place. Plaintiff shall
8
be permitted to view the examination results by sending a request to the warden. The court will
9
then issue a report and recommendation on Plaintiff's motion.
10
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 29 , 2014
__________________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
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?