Matthews v. Taylor et al
ORDER: Plaintiffs Objection to Magistrate Judge's Release of Defendants on Amended Complaint and Denial of Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 28 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff is advised that if he is placed in segregated housing he may renew his request for injunctive relief. Signed on 4/18/2017 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (copy mailed to plaintiff) (kms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
DANIEL J. MATTHEWS,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01958-SB
J. TAYLOR, et al.,
HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Eastern Oregon Conectional Institution (EOCI), brings this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 13, 2017, this Cmnt dismissed Plaintiffs
Amended Complaint, in part, on the basis that Plaintiff failed to allege facts giving rise to a
reasonable inference that several of the Defendants were personally involved in the constitutional
violations. Order (ECF No. 21) at 3. Plaintiff was advised that supervisory officials are not
vicariously liability under § 1983 for the conduct of their employees. Id. Additionally, this Court
denied Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on the basis that he failed to demonstrate ( 1)
a likelihood of success on the merits, or serious questions going to the merits, because a
disagreement with medical officials concerning his course of treatment does not give rise to an
Eighth Amendment violation; and (2) that he would suffer irreparable harm because it appears from
the face ofhis Amended Complaint that he is receiving mental health care and he does not allege that
he currently is in physical danger or in segregation housing (which allegedly contributes to selfharm). Id at 5. Plaintiff objects to both rulings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. See Pl.'s Obj. to
Magistrate's Release ofDefs. on Am. Comp!. and Denial of Prelim. Inj. (ECF No. 28).
Because the challenged Order was not issued by a magistrate judge, the objection is
DENIED. Further, this Court adheres to its dismissal of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, in pmi, on
the basis that he failed to allege facts giving rise to a reasonable inference that Defendants Collette
Peters, Elizabeth Craig, Kim Brockmnp, Mitch Morrow, Birdie Janet Worley, Brian Belleque, and
Adrian O'Connor were personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations. See Smith v.
Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that a district court "may properly
reconsider its decision if it (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear
error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in
controlling law.") (internal quotations omitted).
Additionally, this Court has considered Plaintiffs Supplemental Brief (ECF No.27) and
adheres to its decision denying Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking to compel
Defendants to (I) provide him a mental health evaluation and care by a "hired state licensed
psychiatrist;" (2) commence an "audit" of the prison's grievance processes and to accept and
investigate his grievances; (3) commence an "audit" of the EOCI mailroom staff and order them to
deliver his mail immediately; (4) commence an "audit" ofEOCI' s "mental health care infrastructure,
grievance system infrastructure, mailroom arbitrations, and segregation stafftraining and general rule
updates and/or policy changes from May 16, 2012 to present;" and (5) stop any harassment or
retaliation by correctional officials." Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (ECF No. 16) at 1-2; Order at 4. Although
Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from long-term mental health problems, it appears thathe is receiving
mental health care treatment and he has not presented evidence that he currently is in physical danger
from himself or Defendants. The Court notes that Plaintiffs prior attempts at self-harm have
occurred while he is in segregated housing and Plaintiff does not allege that he currently is in
Finally, with respect to Plaintiffs objection to the Court's Order granting Defendants'
request to inspect and copy Plaintiffs medical and mental health records (see Order (ECF No. 24)),
this Court adheres to its decision because Plaintiff has waived any claim to medical privilege by
filing this civil rights action challenging his mental health care. Voth v. Laney, 2: 16-cv-00779-AC,
2016 WL 8677345, at *4 (D. Or. Dec. 2, 2016); Williamsv. Or. Dep 't ofCorr., No. 3:10-cv-00730SI, 2012 WL 10620, at *10 (D. Or. Jan. 3, 2012).
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs Objection to Magistrate Judge's Release of Defendants
on Amended Complaint and Denial of Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 28) is DENIED. Plaintiff
is advised that if he is placed in segregated housing he may renew his request for injunctive relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this __!__1 day of April, 2017.
Marco A. Hernandek
United States District Judge
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?