Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00562/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00562-7/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Kevin Hagan seeks to hold the defendants, who are physicians at Valley State Prison, liable for 

violations of federal and state law related to the medical care he has received. (See generally Doc. 29.) 

Plaintiff requests a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, seeking injunctive relief in 

the form of an order directs Plaintiff receive a recommended back surgery and adequate pain 

management. (Doc. 29-2.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to show he was entitled to 

injunctive relief at this time, and recommended the request be denied. (Doc. 52 at 26-27.)

Defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 43.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff stated cognizable 

claims for deliberate indifference against Drs. Sandu, Eskander, Longia, Son, and Mevi. (Doc. 52 at 

12-20.) The magistrate judge found the “allegations against Defendants plausibly give rise to the 

inference that the failure to recommend, request, approve or order a surgery to address Plaintiff’s back 

condition was medically unacceptable under the circumstances.” (Id. at 17.) The magistrate judge also 

KEVIN HAGAN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

RAUL RECAREY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:22-cv-0562 JLT EPG

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE 

RELIEF AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Docs. 29-2, 43, and 52)

Case 1:22-cv-00562-JLT-EPG Document 55 Filed 09/10/24 Page 1 of 2
2

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

found Plaintiff “sufficient alleges Dr. Son, Dr. Longia, and Dr. Mevi’s overall delay in prescribing 

Plaintiff with stronger medication beyond over-the-counter medications and topical creams to address 

his pain was medically unacceptable;” and that “Dr. Eskander’s failure to prescribe additional 

medication, despite Plaintiff’s reports of pain and medical history, was medically unacceptable.” (Id. at 

19-20.) In addition, the magistrate judge determined Plaintiff stated cognizable claims for medical 

negligence, and the claims were not barred because Plaintiff made a government claim that contained 

sufficient information for the CDCR to have notice of the factual allegations and conduct an 

investigation. (Id. at 23-26.) Finally, although Defendants assert they are entitled qualified immunity, 

the magistrate judge found “it is unclear at this early stage whether the decisions made by Defendants 

were medically acceptable in light of Plaintiff’s allegations.” (Id. at 22.) Therefore, the magistrate 

judge recommended Defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied. (Id.)

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on all parties and notified them that any 

objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 52 at 27.) The Court advised the parties that the “failure to 

file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants filed

objections, and the time to do so has passed. 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having 

carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported 

by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated July 31, 2024 (Doc. 52) are ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief (Doc. 29-2) is DENIED.

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 43) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2024 

Case 1:22-cv-00562-JLT-EPG Document 55 Filed 09/10/24 Page 2 of 2