Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02712/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02712-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHARLES G. REECE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMRIK BASI, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-2712 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court are plaintiff and defendants’ cross-motions for 

summary judgment (ECF Nos. 49, 68, 72, 73) and plaintiff’s motion to correct error (ECF No. 

84). 

 Plaintiff has filed a motion to correct error in which he claims that the court erred by 

misinterpreting his Fourteenth Amendment claim against defendant Basi as an Eighth 

Amendment claim. ECF No. 84. Specifically, plaintiff argues that his claim that defendant Basi 

failed to warn him of the risks and side effects of Terazosin denied him his right to due process. 

Id. Upon screening of the complaint, the previously assigned magistrate judge found that “[t]he 

complaint states a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(b)” and ordered service on defendants Basi, Lahey, Villote, Naku, and Traquina without 

specifying the claims recognized. ECF No. 8 at 2. 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 91 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

Defendants Lahey, Naku, Traquina, and Villote moved to dismiss the complaint on the 

grounds that (1) plaintiff could not state a claim for injunctive relief against Naku and Traquina; 

(2) the claim for damages against all defendants was time-barred; (3) plaintiff could not state an 

Eighth Amendment claim for damages against Naku and Traquina; and (4) plaintiff failed to state 

a claim for deliberate indifference as to defendants Lahey and Villote. ECF No. 19-1. Defendant 

Basi joined the motion. ECF No. 20. The motion to dismiss was granted on the grounds that 

plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief could proceed only pursuant to the procedures outlined in 

the Plata stipulation and were moot, and that plaintiff failed to state a claim against defendants 

Naku and Traquina. ECF No. 36. 

Judgment was entered in error (ECF No. 37) and in re-opening the case, the court stated 

that the case proceeded on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference against 

defendants Basi, Lahey, and Villote (ECF No. 39). Because the motion to dismiss had addressed 

only plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims, the court made no mention of plaintiff’s Fourteenth 

Amendment claims in its order. The court now clarifies for the record that the complaint states a 

Fourteenth Amendment claim against defendant Basi1 for failing to inform plaintiff of the risks 

and side effects of Terazosin, thereby denying him his Fourteenth Amendment right to be 

provided the information necessary to make reasonably informed decisions about his healthcare.2 

Because there is no error to correct, plaintiff’s motion to correct will be denied as moot. 

 

1

 Plaintiff also made Fourteenth Amendment claims against defendants Naku and Traquina, but 

because those claims are grounded in the same facts as the Eighth Amendment claims against 

them, the Fourteenth Amendment claims fail for the same reasons. See ECF No. 31. 

2

 The Ninth Circuit has held that the Fourteenth Amendment provides for the right to be “free 

from unjustified intrusions into the body.” Benson v. Terhune, 304 F.3d 874, 884 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(citing Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127, 134 (1992)). That right includes the right “to refuse 

unwanted medical treatment and to receive sufficient information to exercise these rights 

intelligently.” Id. (citing White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 111 (3d Cir. 1990)); see also White, 

897 F.2d at 113 (“A prisoner’s right to refuse treatment is useless without knowledge of the 

proposed treatment. Prisoners have a right to such information as is reasonably necessary to 

make an informed decision to accept or reject proposed treatment, as well as a reasonable 

explanation of the viable alternative treatments that can be made available in a prison setting.”); 

Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241, 250 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[T]here exists a liberty interest in receiving 

such information as a reasonable patient would require in order to make an informed decision as 

to whether to accept or reject proposed medical treatment.”). 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 91 Filed 09/30/15 Page 2 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3

 Additionally, in reviewing the cross-motions for summary judgment, the court has 

discovered an error in the docketing. On November 17, 2014, the Clerk of the Court filed 

plaintiff’s opposition to defendant Basi’s motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 79. Plaintiff’s 

opposition to defendants Villote and Lahey’s motion for summary judgment was received the 

same day, but was inadvertently identified as a courtesy copy of the opposition to defendant 

Basi’s motion. As a result, plaintiff’s opposition to Villote and Lahey’s motion was never filed 

and defendants Villote and Lahey have not replied to the opposition. 

 In light of the confusion surrounding the scope of the claims against defendant Basi and 

the docketing error related to defendants Villote and Lahey’s summary-judgment motion, the 

court will vacate all three pending motions for summary judgment and the parties will be given an 

opportunity to file new motions for summary judgment. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion to correct error (ECF No. 84) is denied as moot. 

 2. The parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 49, 68, 72, 73) are 

vacated. 

 3. The parties may file new motions for summary judgment within sixty days of the filing 

of this order. 

DATED: September 30, 2015 

 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 91 Filed 09/30/15 Page 3 of 3