Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00390/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00390-14/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 This action also proceeds against defendants Noriega and Mahmoud. 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES OLIVER, No. 2:06-cv-00390-MCE-EFB P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

THOMAS CAREY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Defendants Solomon and Thor filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6). On December 2, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and 1

recommendations, recommending that defendants’ motions to dismiss be denied. These findings

and recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

Case 2:06-cv-00390-MCE -EFB Document 59 Filed 03/10/10 Page 1 of 4
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

 The operative complaint in this action is the second amended complaint, which was

2

filed on December 20, 2006. Dckt. No. 12. 

2

Defendant Solomon filed objections on December 8, 2009, defendant Thor filed objections on

December 23, 2009, and plaintiff filed responses to defendants’ objections on January 11 and

January 20, 2010.

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. 

On January 17, 2007, the magistrate judge, after screening the operative complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, recommended that this action be dismissed for failure to state a

claim. Dckt. No. 13. On March 8, 2007, the undersigned adopted those findings and 2

recommendations, and judgment was duly entered. Dckt. Nos. 17, 18. Plaintiff appealed that

judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Dckt. No. 19. The Ninth Circuit

reversed, and stated that “[a]ccepting Oliver’s allegations as true and construing the pro se

complaint liberally, we cannot say at this early stage in the proceedings that Oliver fails to state a

claim for deliberate indifference.” Dckt. No. 25 at 3. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to

this court for further proceedings. Id.

Thereafter, the magistrate judge found service appropriate for defendants Thor, Soloman,

Noriega, and Mahmoud, based upon plaintiff’s claims that defendants were deliberately

indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Dckt. No. 27. 

Defendants Soloman and Thor subsequently moved to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff

failed to state a claim for relief against them. Dckt. Nos. 30, 36. According to defendants, the

only allegations against them pertain to their involvement in processing plaintiff’s administrative

appeal, which they assert, cannot support a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The magistrate judge found that defendants were essentially seeking reconsideration of

the Ninth Circuit’s order and that this court could not reconsider that order. Dckt. No. 54 at 2. 

Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended denial of defendants’ motions on that basis. Id. 

Case 2:06-cv-00390-MCE -EFB Document 59 Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 4
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

In their objections to the finding and recommendations, defendants assert that the Ninth Circuit,

in finding plaintiff had stated a claim for relief, relied on allegations and language that do not

appear in the operative complaint. Dckt. Nos. 55, 56. 

Having reviewed the operative complaint, the undersigned agrees that it does not contain

the allegations that the Ninth Circuit referenced in its memorandum. However, the undersigned

agrees with the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that plaintiff has stated a deliberate indifference claim

against defendants Soloman and Thor. Plaintiff alleges that he had been scheduled for corrective

treatment and surgery for a triceps tendon tear, but before the treatment and surgery could be

done, he was transferred to another institution. Dckt. No. 12 at 3. Plaintiff alleges that after

being transferred, he suffered from severe pain because defendants Noriega and Mahmoud failed

to complete the proper paperwork or complete any follow-up to ensure that plaintiff was seen and

treated by the orthopedic department or otherwise provided with adequate medical treatment.. Id.

at 3-4. As to defendants Solomon and Thor, plaintiff alleges the following:

Dr. Donald Soloman and Dr. Daniel E. Thor both collectively read, signed,

and were [aware] of Petitioner’s repeated request for treatment by means

of Petitioner’s inmate 602 grievance which Dr. Soloman responded to at

the First level on March 11, 2005, and Dr. Thor responded to on February

15, 2005.

Neither doctor did anything to assist or even help Petitioner receive the

ordered and needed treatment. In fact Petitioner did not receive surgery

for his severe medical needs until December of 2005, almost two (2) years

after being diagnosed and all four (4) doctor were aware and did absolutely

nothing to expedite Petitioner’s treatment.

Doctor’s [sic] Soloman and Thor collectively were deliberately indifferent

to Petitioner’s serious medical needs, a violation of Petitioner’s 8th and

14th amendment civil rights as were Dr. Noriega and Dr. Mahmoud.

Petitioner suffered severe continual and chronic pain for some 21 months

before receiving the much needed surgery ordered and never done by

numerous doctors, which included but is not limited to Dr. Noriega, Dr.

Mahmoud, Dr. Soloman, and Dr. Thor collectively.

 

Id. at 5. Plaintiff states a deliberate indifference claim by alleging that despite his repeated

requests for medical treatment, defendants Soloman and Thor, both doctors, did nothing to assist

plaintiff in receiving adequate medical care. 

Case 2:06-cv-00390-MCE -EFB Document 59 Filed 03/10/10 Page 3 of 4
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 Defendant Mahmoud has not yet been served with process. 3

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that for the reasons stated above:

1. Defendant Solomon’s July 16, 2009, motion to dismiss is denied;

2. Defendant Thor’s August 19, 2009, motion to dismiss is denied; and,

3. Defendants Solomon, Thor, and Noriega are directed to file an answer within thirty

(30) days of the date of the electronic filing of this order.3

Dated: March 9, 2010

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00390-MCE -EFB Document 59 Filed 03/10/10 Page 4 of 4