Davis v. High Desert State Prison et al
| Terrence L Davis |
| High Desert State Prison, S Clark, G Abdur-Rahman, Pomazal, Josh Burgett, A-Yard Facility Clinic, Jeff Wagdle, S. Harkness, A. Amero, Vitvitski, Bonnie Lee, Dorothy Swingle, D. Garbutt and Health Care Appeals Office |
| 2:2011cv02296 |
| August 29, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Lassen |
| Craig M. Kellison |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
95
ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 3/1/2017 GRANTING plaintiff an additional 20 days to file objections to the 1/23/2017 findings and recommendations. IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's 94 motion for injunction be denied. Motion referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
92
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 1/20/17 recommending that defendants' motion for summary judgment 70 be granted; and the clerk of the court be directed to enter judgment and close this case. Motion for Summary Judgment 70 referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell. Objections due within 20 days. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
89
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 8/10/2016 DENYING plaintiff's 85 , 87 motions for competency determination hearing; and plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment shall be filed within 30 days. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
84
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 9/9/2015 GRANTING 83 Request for Extension of Time. Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed within 30 days of the date of this order. (Donati, J)
|
|
Filing
66
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 10/29/14 denying Motions to Appoint Counsel 63 , 64 . (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
58
ORDER adopting in full 53 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 3/26/14. Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. 39 , 40 ) are GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. Plaintiff failed to exhaust his claims relating to his wheelchair, requested MRI, and pain specialist referral, and those claims are DISMISSED. Plaintiff's claims regarding his pain medication sufficiently state a claim for deliberate indifference to his medical condition, and th e motion to dismiss those claims is DENIED. Plaintiff's claim for violation of his due process rights relating to his prison disciplinary hearing is insufficient, and the motion to dismiss that claim is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claim for vio lation of his Eighth Amendment rights relating to alleged threats against him is insufficient, and the motion to dismiss that claim is GRANTED. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. Defendants Vitvitski , Qualls, and Amero are DISMISSED from this action. This action shall proceed as to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims relating to his pain medication against defendants Clark, Abdur-Rahman, Pomazal, and Burgett only. Defendants Clark, Abdur-Rahman, Pomazal, and Burgett shall file an answer to the complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
53
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 02/07/14 recommending that defendants' motions to dismiss 39 , 40 be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff failed to exhaust his claims relating to his whee lchair, requested MRI, and pain specialist referral, and those claims should be dismissed. Plaintiff's claims regarding his pain medication sufficiently state a claim for deliberate indifference to his medical condition, and the motion to dismi ss those claims should be denied. Plaintiff's claim for violation of his due process rights relating to his prison disciplinary hearing is insufficient, and the motion to dismiss thi claim should be granted. Plaintiff's claim for violation of his Eighth Amendment rights relating to alleged threats against him is insufficient, and the motion to dismiss this claim should be granted. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. As the only claims ag inst defendants Vitvitski, Qualls, and Amero are insufficient or unexhausted, these defendants should be dismissed from this action. This action should proceed as to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims relating to his pain medication against de fendants Clark, Abdur-Rahman, Pomazal, and Burgett only. The remaining defendants should be directed to file an answer within 30 days of the adoption of these findings and recommendations. Motions 39 and 40 referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell. Objections due within 20 days. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
50
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 12/12/13 ordering that the clerk of the court is directed to randomly assign a District Judge to this case and to update the docket to reflect the new case number. U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell randomly assigned to this action. The new case number is 2:11-cv-2296 GEB CMK (PC). (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
22
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 09/18/12 ordering plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining orders, or preliminary injunction 14 , 15 are denied. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 9/22/2011 GRANTING 7 plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis; pltf is required to pay the full statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
6
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 9/1/2011 DENYING plaintiff' 3 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Marciel, M)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
