Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00830/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00830-16/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN L. WILSON,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:06-cv-00830 ALA (P)

vs.

C/O MARTIN, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff Melvin Wilson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff contends that Defendants acted with deliberate

indifference, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, when Defendants failed to treat injuries he

sustained during a collision on the way to UC Davis Medical Center (“UC Davis”). The

gravamen of Plaintiff’s argument is that Defendants should have allowed his injuries to be

assessed and treated at UC Davis instead of at Mule Creek. Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants

were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when they canceled his scheduled

echo-cardiogram.

On December 10, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 30). In

support of his motion, Plaintiff provides four points that he believes are undisputed and

necessarily support a judgment in his favor.

Case 2:06-cv-00830-ALA Document 59 Filed 07/15/08 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

2

Defendants also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that Plaintiff cannot

establish essential elements for an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. (Doc. 47). 

This Court resolved that Summary Judgment Motion on June 20, 2008, finding that genuine

issues, as to material facts, required a trial as to Plaintiff’s first claim that involved the

Defendants’ decision to return to Mule Creek to treat Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. Necessarily,

this Court denied Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to that claim. This Court

granted, however, Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiff’s second claim that involved the

cancellation of his echo-cardiogram, which he received shortly thereafter. 

Summary judgment may be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter

of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (c). “The moving party bears the initial burden to demonstrate the

absence of any genuine issue of material fact.” Horphag Research Ltd. v. Garcia, 475 F.3d

1029, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007). “A material fact is one the that is relevant to an element of a claim

or defense and whose existence might affect the outcome of the suit.” T.W. Elec. Service, Inc. v.

Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal quotations omitted). 

If the moving party meets this initial burden, the non-moving party must rebut the moving

party’s arguments by proffering specific facts that show a genuine issue for trial exists. Horphag

Research Ltd., 475 F.3d at 1035.

Plaintiff failed to meet the required burden. As mentioned supra, and set forth in the

Court’s Order regarding Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion, this Court finds that triable

issues exist as to Plaintiff’s claim that involved Defendants’ decision to treat his injuries at Mule

Creek’s Correctional Treatment Center.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00830-ALA Document 59 Filed 07/15/08 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

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied.

/////

DATED: July 14, 2008

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

 Sitting by Designation

Case 2:06-cv-00830-ALA Document 59 Filed 07/15/08 Page 3 of 3