Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01856/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01856-21/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 

BERNARD HUGHES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MARTIN H. JANSEN, M.D., et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-1856-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On December 1, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations. 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. The magistrate judge recommends that a 

document filed by plaintiff pro se on October 22, 2015, ECF No. 62, be construed as a motion for 

preliminary injunction and, so construed, that the motion be denied. 

///// 

Case 2:11-cv-01856-KJM-EFB Document 77 Filed 03/01/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

At issue in this litigation is whether defendants are acting with deliberate indifference to 

plaintiff’s serious medical need for adequate treatment of his major depressive disorder, 

specifically, by taking plaintiff off Wellbutrin. See ECF No. 62 at1-2. At the time plaintiff filed 

the motion before the court, he believed he was represented by counsel who had been appointed 

in this matter “for the limited purposes of investigating plaintiff’s claims, drafting and filing an 

amended complaint, and assessing the need for a temporary restraining order.” ECF No. 75 at 1, 

citing ECF No. 48. By the motion before the court, he sought an order requiring his court 

appointed counsel to seek an order requiring defendants to provide him with proper mental health 

care. ECF No. 62 at 2. 

On February 16, 2016, the magistrate judge issued an order requiring court appointed 

counsel to return plaintiff’s case file to him and file a statement certifying that he has done so 

while also clarifying whether he wishes to continue to represent plaintiff in this action. ECF No. 

75 at 2. Pending that clarification, the court will not consider whether injunctive relief is 

appropriate. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied without prejudice to its renewal, as appropriate, 

following compliance with the magistrate judge’s February 16, 2016 order. 

The court has reviewed the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint (SAC), 

prepared by court appointed counsel. The SAC is the operative complaint in this action. As the 

record now shows, see ECF No. 75, plaintiff asserts that he did not have a copy of the SAC at the 

time he filed the motion before the court. Given the allegations contained in that motion, the 

court has requested the Special Master in Coleman v. Brown, Case No. 90-cv-0520 KJM KJN, to 

check on plaintiff’s current mental health status. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 1, 2015, are not adopted; and 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 62) is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: February 29, 2016 

Case 2:11-cv-01856-KJM-EFB Document 77 Filed 03/01/16 Page 2 of 2