Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02244/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02244-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD CARLOS DIAZ, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOCTOR NEWTON; OFFICER 

LAXAMANNA

Defendants.

Consolidated Civil Case No.: 

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION ON

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS AND PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO AMEND

[ECF Nos. 21, 25, 29, 31, 33, 43]

Plaintiff Ronald Carlos Diaz, Sr. (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”), has filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 

1.) Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts claims for deliberate indifference to medical need for 

incidents occurring while he was incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional 

Facility (“RJD”) located in San Diego, California. (Id.) 

On November 2, 2016, the Honorable Dana M. Sabraw dismissed each defendant 

except Defendant Dr. Sidighi in an initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 

and § 1915A. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave to Amend as to dismissed Defendants 

Officer Laxamanna and Dr. Newton. (ECF No. 21.) Defendant Dr. Sidighi has filed a 

Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 44 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 21
2

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

25.) Both motions have been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for a Report 

and Recommendation (“R&R”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court 

RECOMMENDS that Dr. Sidighi’s Motion to Dismiss be DENIED and Plaintiff’s

Motion for Leave to Amend be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

BACKGROUND

I. Procedural Background

A. Sua Sponte Screening

Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendants California Correctional Health 

Care Services, Dr. Sidighi, Dr. Newton, Officer Laxamanna, and Dr. Cheryl Schutt 

alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment based on denial of medical care. (ECF No. 

1.) Judge Sabraw granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP, however, the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) requires courts to review and sua sponte

dismiss any complaint, or any portion of a complaint, which is frivolous, malicious, fails 

to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§

1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Officer Laxamanna and Dr. Schutt were dismissed on

screening for failing to state a plausible claim for relief. (ECF No. 14.) Defendant 

California Correctional Health Care Services was also dismissed sua sponte for failing to 

state a claim and for seeking damages against a defendant who is immune. (Id. at 10.) As 

to Dr. Newton, Plaintiff’s Complaint was found devoid of any factual allegations and he 

was dismissed. (ECF No. 14 at 8.)

On January 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document captioned “Amended Complaint,” 

however, the Court has construed it as a Motion for Leave to Amend based on the 

substance of the filing.1(ECF No. 21.) An Opposition was filed on March 8, 2017.

2

 

1

It states in the first paragraph that Plaintiff is seeking permission to amend his complaint 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) and goes on to provide additional 

allegations as to Dr. Newton and Officer Laxamanna.

2

It is titled “Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration” but as 

discussed earlier the Court construes Plaintiff’s Motion as a request for leave to amend 

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 44 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 21
3

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

(ECF No. 27.) On May 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file 

an optional reply brief in support of his request for leave to amend that was granted on 

June 5, 2017. (ECF Nos. 36, 38.) With the extension, Plaintiff’s reply brief was due 

June 19, 2017. (ECF No. 39.) He did not file the Reply brief, however, on June 5, 2017, 

Plaintiff filed an additional request for leave to amend. (ECF No. 41.) On July 28, 2017, 

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address that includes an explanation why he failed 

to meet the June 19, 2017 deadline. (ECF No. 43.) He requests the Court to either issue 

an order allowing him to file the Reply3 by a later date or to consider the additional facts 

he alleges as to the dismissed defendants in ruling on the Motion for Leave to Amend. 

(Id. at 4.) The Court GRANTS the latter request because, as explained below, the Court 

has considered all his proposed allegations, including those in the June 5, 2017 and July 

27, 2017 filings, in considering whether leave to amend should be granted. Additionally, 

as noted in the Order granting the extension to June 19, 2017, and as evident from the 

analysis below, the optional Reply brief is unnecessary. (ECF No. 39.) 

Dr. Sidighi, the only defendant Plaintiff was allowed to proceed against, filed a 

Motion to Dismiss on February 13, 2017. (ECF No. 25). Plaintiff filed an Opposition on 

March 6, 2017. (ECF No. 29.) The Court first considers Dr. Sidighi’s Motion to Dismiss 

and then Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend.

II. Factual Background in Plaintiff’s Complaint 

According to the Complaint, Plaintiff took some sleeping medication at night and 

woke up with an erection that he thought was “normal” on Tuesday, July 3rd or 

 

based on additional allegations, not as a request for reconsideration of the screening 

Order. Dismissal of claims pursuant to a screening order does not preclude leave to 

amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding leave to amend 

may be granted following dismissal pursuant to § 1915(e)). 

3 Plaintiff refers to the filing as an Answer, however, given the Court has construed it as a 

request for leave to amend and an opposition has been filed, an additional brief on his 

motion would be a reply brief.

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 44 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 21
4

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

Wednesday, July 4th.(ECF No. 1 at 10.

4

) The erection eventually “went down to a half 

erection but became painful off and on since the night before.” (Id.) Plaintiff submitted a 

Health Care Services Request Form (“Medical Slip”) on July 4th or 5th.5 While waiting 

to be escorted to the law library the pain in his lower abdominal was becoming more 

extreme. (Id.) Plaintiff’s mental health doctor, “Dr. Duke,” walked by Plaintiff and 

noticed that he was in pain. (Id.) When Dr. Duke approached Plaintiff, Plaintiff described 

his symptoms and told Dr. Duke that he submitted a sick call slip “last night.” (Id. at 11.) 

Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Duke stated that Plaintiff’s situation was extremely serious and 

could cause lifetime permanent injury if not treated immediately. (Id.) 

According to Plaintiff, Dr. Duke returned and informed Plaintiff that he reported 

the incident to the nurses and that the nurses “need to A.S.A.P. send [Plaintiff] to 

emergency room.” (Id.) Plaintiff went to the law library to wait for the nurses. (Id.)

While there, Plaintiff alleges the pain became so bad that he told Officer Laxamanna to 

call a paramedic because he needed to be sent to an outside hospital emergency room. 

(Id. at 13.) Officer Laxamanna told Plaintiff he was escorting him back to his cell and 

would ask the unit nurse to see him. (Id.) While escorting Plaintiff back to his cell 

Plaintiff and Officer Laxamanna encountered the medical unit officer, Ms. Alvarado, who 

indicated she had gone to his cell looking for him because he was on the nurse’s list to be 

seen. (Id.) However, she also indicated the nurse had gone somewhere so Plaintiff was 

 

4 All references to page numbers in this R&R refer to the CM/ECF electronicallyassigned pagination unless otherwise noted. 

5 The date on the Medical Slip, attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint as Exhibit B is July 8, 

2012. (ECF No. 1 at 20.) This would appear to be after all the events described in 

Plaintiff’s Complaint have taken place. However, Plaintiff indicates that he had no 

calendar because he was in the administrative segregation unit and acknowledges his 

dates may not be exactly right. (ECF No. 1 at 10; ECF 41 at 5.) This is apparent from the 

allegations of the Complaint as well. In a number of places, he notes something may 

have happened on one day or the next. Because he refers to the attached Medical Slip, 

the Court assumes the July 8, 2012 Medical Slip is the one he alleges he submitted on 

July 4th or 5th.

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 44 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 21
5

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

placed back in his cell until the nurse returned. (Id.) When the nurse returned, another 

officer escorted Plaintiff to the nurses’ station where he was seen by Nurse Sanchez. (Id.) 

Plaintiff alleges that he told Nurse Sanchez that he needed to be sent to an outside 

hospital emergency room as the pain was unbearable. (Id. at 14.) Nurse Sanchez stated 

that she did not have authorization to make that determination and told Plaintiff that she 

would “call the (prison doctor) to notify him of the emergency and situation,” “that the 

prison doctors have that authorization,” and she would “call and see what they say.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff further alleges that when Nurse Sanchez “called and spoke to . . . Dr. Sidighi” he 

told Nurse Sanchez “for [Plaintiff[ to wait 3 more days then he will see me an determine 

whether to send me to [the] E.R.” (Id.) 

Later that day, at approximately 4:30 p.m., Plaintiff was escorted to the emergency 

intake where he states that he was examined by three nurses.6(Id. at 15.) Plaintiff alleges 

that the nurses in the emergency intake did not have authorization to send him to an 

outside medical facility and that they reiterated that Dr. Sidighi indicated he would have 

to wait three days to be seen by Dr. Sidighi. (Id.) Plaintiff’s Complaint states that the pain

then became so bad that he wanted to commit suicide, resulting in him being sent to 

“crisis bed.” (Id.) The following morning, Plaintiff was seen by mental health doctors and 

reported his condition to them. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that the mental health doctors then 

contacted Dr. Sidighi to notify him of the need to immediately send Plaintiff to the 

emergency room. (Id. at 15-16.) Plaintiff alleges that only then did Dr. Sidighi see

Plaintiff. (Id. at 16.) 

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that after this examination, Dr. Sidighi “refused” to 

send Plaintiff to the emergency room, but then agreed to send him to the emergency room 

after Plaintiff threatened to sue him. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he had a bedside surgery at 

the hospital and was then transported back to prison. (Id. at 16.) Plaintiff’s problem 

 

6 As explained in Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend, Plaintiff now alleges one of the 

three nurses is Dr. Newton. (ECF No. 21 at 3.)

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 44 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 21
6

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

returned the following morning and Dr. Sidighi was notified. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges Dr.

Sidighi did not want to send him back to the emergency room and he was only sent back 

the second time after the mental health doctors again intervened. (Id.) Upon arrival at the 

hospital, Plaintiff received an additional bedside surgery. (Id. at 17.) He alleges that this 

second surgery failed and Plaintiff was then rushed into the operating room where 

doctors performed a third surgical operation. (Id.) He was examined the following day 

and received a fourth surgery before being returned to the prison. (Id.) Plaintiff vaguely 

alleges that he has suffered permanent injury. 7 (Id. at 8.) 

DISCUSSION 

I. Motion to Dismiss

A. Rule 12(b)(6)

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), a complaint must contain “a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 

“[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ 

but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-meaccusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the 

plaintiff’s claims. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient 

 

7 Other filings by Plaintiff make clear that he is alleging he is no longer able to attain a 

natural erection as a result of his injury, however, in considering the Motion to Dismiss, 

the Court’s review is limited to the Complaint and exhibits attached to the Complaint. 

Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Cervantes v. City of 

San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274 (9th Cir. 1993)); Wilhelm, 608 F.3d at 1116 n. 1. “[A] 

court may not look beyond the complaint to a plaintiff’s moving papers, such as a 

memorandum in opposition to a defendant’s motion to dismiss,” however, the courts may 

consider these allegations in assessing whether to grant leave to amend. Schneider v. 

Cal. Dep’t of Corrs., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998); Broam, 320 F.3d at 1026 

n.2 (citing Orion Tire Corp. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 268 F.3d 1133, 1137-38 

(9th Cir. 2001)). 

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 44 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 21
7

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial 

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 556 U.S. at 

678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). 

“For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, we construe the pleading in the light 

most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 340 (9th 

Cir. 2010). Additionally, allegations in pro se complaints “must be held to less stringent 

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 

(2007) (per curiam). “Iqbal incorporated the Twombly pleading standard and Twombly

did not alter courts’ treatment of pro se filings; accordingly, we continue to construe pro 

se filings liberally when evaluating them under Iqbal.” Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 342. The 

Courts “‘obligation’ remains, ‘where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights 

cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of any 

doubt.’” Id. (quoting Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en 

banc)).

B. Eighth Amendment Claim Against Dr. Sidighi

To state a claim under § 1983, the plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to show (1) 

a person acting under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) the 

conduct deprived the plaintiff of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the 

Constitution or laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Shah v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 

797 F.2d 743, 746 (9th Cir. 1986). Only the second element is at issue in this Motion.

Plaintiff asserts a constitutional violation under the Eighth Amendment. “[T]o 

state a cognizable [Eighth Amendment] claim [based on medical care], a prisoner must 

allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious 

medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Plaintiff alleges Dr. Sidighi 

was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition, priapism, by denying him 

medical treatment for his condition. (ECF at 15.) 

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 44 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 21
8

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

“A public official’s ‘deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury’ 

violates the Eighth Amendment ban against cruel punishment.” Clement v. Gomez, 298 

F.3d 898, 904 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 97). “To establish an Eighth 

Amendment violation, a prisoner ‘must satisfy both the objective and subjective 

components of a two-part test.’” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) 

(quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002)). 

1. Objective Prong

“To meet the objective element of the standard, a plaintiff must demonstrate the 

existence of a serious medical need.” Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 

2014). “Indications that a plaintiff has a serious medical need include ‘the existence of 

an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment 

or treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual’s 

daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain.’” Id. (quoting McGuckin

v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX 

Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997)).

Here, Plaintiff has pled the existence of a serious medical need.8 He has alleged a

condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily activities and a condition that a 

reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of treatment. Plaintiff 

asserts that his condition became so unbearably painful that he could not focus on what 

he was doing, he was barely able to walk, and that the condition ultimately led to his 

wanting to commit suicide and being sent to “crisis bed.” (ECF No. 1 at 13-15.) 

Plaintiff’s allegations concerning the reaction of the doctors in the emergency room and 

 

8 Although not binding on this Court, another district court faced with similar facts at the 

summary judgment stage found priapism a serious medical condition based, in part, on it 

causing significant pain and warranting the prisoner being sent to the hospital. Withers v. 

Carter, Case No. 13 C 1643, 2015 WL 5920658, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 8, 2015) (finding

objective element met because the “record show[ed] that the priapism caused plaintiff 

significant pain, and defendants deemed the condition serious enough to warrant sending 

him to a hospital”).

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 44 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 21
9

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

the treatment he required also indicate he was suffering from a condition a reasonable 

doctor would find important and worthy of treatment. Plaintiff alleges that doctors at the 

hospital were extremely upset and told him the prison doctor should have sent Plaintiff to 

see them immediately. (Id. at 16.) Plaintiff also underwent four surgeries.9 (Id. at 16-

17.) 

2. Subjective Prong 

“A prison official is deliberately indifferent under the subjective element of the test 

only if the official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and 

safety.” Colwell, 763 F.3d at 1066 (quoting Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057). “The official 

must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial 

risk of serious harm exists and he must also draw the inference.” Id. (quoting Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994)). “Deliberate indifference ‘may appear when prison 

officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown 

by the way in which prison physicians provide medical care.” Id. (quoting Hutchinson v. 

United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988)). “Mere negligence in diagnosing or 

treating a medical condition, without more, does not violate a prisoner’s Eighth 

Amendment rights.” Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057. 

Dr. Sidighi argues three bases for dismissal of the claim against him: (1) that, 

based on Plaintiff’s Medical Slip, attached to the Complaint, Dr. Sidighi was not 

personally involved in the alleged violation of Plaintiff’s rights; (2) that the allegations of 

the Complaint do not show that Dr. Sidighi was aware of a serious risk of harm to 

Plaintiff; and (3) Dr. Sidighi did not deny or delay care for Plaintiff. (Opp’n at 5-8.) 

In arguing that he must be dismissed because he was not personally involved in 

denying or delaying Plaintiff medical care, Dr. Sidighi relies on Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s 

 

9 Plaintiff describes two bedside surgeries and two that seem to have been performed in 

an operating room, although it is not entirely clear. (ECF No. 1 at 16-17.) It does appear

that at least one required anesthesia. (Id. at 17.) 

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 44 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 21
10

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

Complaint, the Medical Slip submitted by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 1 at 20.) The Medical Slip 

consists of a section that Plaintiff has completed that describes his condition — painful 

erection that has lasted days — followed by a section with notes on his condition that 

appears to have been completed by Nurse Sanchez. (Id.)

10

 Dr. Sidighi accurately points 

out that he is not identified as being consulted or providing any care to Plaintiff on the 

Medical Slip and that two other doctors are noted as having been consulted on his 

condition. From this, Dr. Sidighi asks the Court infer that he was not involved at all in 

denying or delaying care to Plaintiff. This is not a completely unreasonable inference

and it seems possible that Plaintiff has simply named the wrong prison doctor as a 

defendant. While the Court can and does consider the Medical Slip because it is attached 

to Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court cannot find at this stage that the Medical Slip negates 

all of Plaintiff’s specific allegations as to Dr. Sidighi. 

When Plaintiff was eventually seen by Nurse Sanchez, he alleges she told him she 

did not have authorization to send him to the emergency room as he requested, and that 

she would “call the (Prison Doctor) to notify him of the emergency and situation.” (Id. at 

14.) Plaintiff further alleges that Nurse Sanchez called and spoke with Dr. Sidighi and he 

told her that Plaintiff would have to wait three days to be seen. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges 

that later that day while sitting in his cell in extreme pain, he was escorted by an officer 

to the prison’s “emergency intake where he was seen by three unnamed nurses.” The 

nurses stated they could not send Plaintiff to an outside facility and Dr. Sidighi would see 

Plaintiff in three days. (Id. at 15.) Plaintiff alleges that at this point the pain became so 

bad that he wanted to commit suicide which resulted in his being sent to “crisis bed.” 

(Id.) The following morning, Plaintiff alleges he was seen by his mental health doctors 

who then contacted Dr. Sidighi to notify him that Plaintiff needed to be sent to the 

 

10 As noted throughout this Order, the dates alleged by Plaintiff and the dates on the 

Medical Slip do not appear to match up. Plaintiff’s dates seem to be earlier than those 

reflected on the Medical Slip.

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 44 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 21
11

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

emergency room immediately. (Id.) A short time later, Dr. Sidighi arrived and examined 

Plaintiff. (Id. at 17.) Although Dr. Sidighi initially still refused to send Plaintiff to the 

emergency room, Plaintiff alleges he did issue an order to have him taken to the 

emergency room where he underwent the first of four “surgeries” to address his 

condition. (Id.) The Court cannot find, as Dr. Sidighi argues, that he was not involved in 

the denial of medical care for a serious medical condition when Plaintiff alleges that Dr. 

Sidighi, having been apprised of Plaintiff’s medical condition, refused to allow him to be 

sent to the emergency room to obtain needed medical care.

Similarly, as to Dr. Sidighi’s second argument, based on the allegations above, the 

Court cannot find Dr. Sidighi was unaware of a serious risk of harm to Plaintiff. Dr. 

Sidighi argues that because Plaintiff does not allege exactly what Nurse Sanchez told Dr. 

Sidighi about Plaintiff’s condition, he has not sufficiently alleged Dr. Sidighi was aware 

of Plaintiff’s serious medical need. However, Plaintiff has alleged Nurse Sanchez 

notified Dr. Sidighi of Plaintiff’s condition. Plaintiff alleges Nurse Sanchez called Dr. 

Sidighi11 to notify him “of the emergency and situation.” (Id. at 14.) As to the specifics 

of Plaintiff’s condition that she conveyed, the Court can reasonably infer that she told Dr. 

Sidighi that Plaintiff was in unbearable pain from an erection that had lasted multiple 

days12 because Plaintiff indicates throughout all his interactions with prison staff that his 

chief symptom was a very painful erection that had lasted days.13 (ECF No. 14, 20.) He 

 

11 Although Plaintiff alleges Nurse Sanchez said she was going to “call the prison doctor

to notify him of the emergency and situation,” in the next sentence he alleges Nurse 

Sanchez called an spoke to Dr. Sidighi. (Id. at 14.)

12 The Medical Slip, dated July 8, 2012, states that Plaintiff reported that he had suffered 

from an erection since July 5, 2012, and the notes on the Medical Slip seem to indicate he 

has had the problem for four days. 

13 Although the pain scale on the initial notes of the Medical Slip is not completed, the 

Court can infer that Plaintiff likely described his pain as severe. Plaintiff had submitted 

the Medical Slip, requested a paramedic at the law library based on the pain he was in, 

and Plaintiff’s mental health doctor was concerned enough about Plaintiff’s condition and 

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 44 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 21
12

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

certainly conveyed this to Nurse Sanchez based on the allegations of the Complaint and 

his Medical Slip. In this respect, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Dr. Sidighi was 

aware of Plaintiff’s serious medical condition. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1097 

(reversing district court based on factual dispute as to whether doctor was aware of 

plaintiff’s medical condition where doctor denied knowledge but plaintiff claimed to 

have sent him a letter describing the condition). 

As to the third argument, Dr. Sidighi argues that he was not deliberately indifferent 

because he sent Plaintiff to an outside facility for further treatment each of the two times

he saw Plaintiff. The Court would agree that Plaintiff has not pled Dr. Sidighi was 

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need the two times Dr. Sidighi physically 

examined Plaintiff, however, as explained below, that does not mean he was not 

deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff serious medical need in delaying care. 

It is accurate to say that, based on the allegations of the Complaint, each time Dr. 

Sidighi physically examined Plaintiff he did send him out for further treatment the same 

day. Although Plaintiff alleges that the first time Dr. Sidighi physically saw him he 

initially refused to send him to the emergency room, he did issue the order to send him. 

(Id. at 16.) Because this appears to have occurred within a single interaction, there is no 

deliberate indifference because there is no delay. As to the second time Dr. Sidighi saw 

Plaintiff, there may have been some delay, but, based on the allegations of the Complaint 

it was not lengthy. After Plaintiff was treated at the hospital and returned to the prison, 

his priapism returned and Plaintiff reported this to his mental health doctors. (Id. at 16.) 

Those doctors notified Dr. Sidighi who again initially refused to send Plaintiff back to the 

hospital, but then Plaintiff’s “mental health doctors [] got on him of [sic] the emergency 

to send me back to the hospital and a short time later the mental health doctors returned 

to notify me that he was writing the order for custody to send me to ER.” (Id. (emphasis 

 

his being visibly in pain that he contacted the medical staff himself. (ECF No. 1 at 10-11, 

13, 20.)

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 44 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 21
13

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

added).) Based on Plaintiff’s characterization of it as a “short time,” the Court cannot 

find this delay demonstrated deliberate indifference by Dr. Sidighi. These brief delays, to 

the extent there was any, do not constitute deliberate indifference. 

However, as discussed above, based on the allegations of the Complaint, Dr. 

Sidighi’s first physical examination of Plaintiff was not when he first became aware of 

Plaintiff’s serious medical need. Dr. Sidighi was informed by Nurse Sanchez of 

Plaintiff’s condition the day before Dr. Sidighi first physically examined Plaintiff and 

said Plaintiff would have to wait. (Id. at 14.) Plaintiff states that he was sent to crisis bed 

and seen by his mental health doctors the “following morning.” (Id. at 15.) It is the

delay from when Dr. Sidighi was allegedly told of Plaintiff’s condition and Plaintiff was 

sent to the hospital for further care that is at issue. In this respect, Dr. Sidighi is incorrect 

in arguing that he sent Plaintiff for outside care the same day Plaintiff first complained 

about his condition. 

Here, Plaintiff alleges Dr. Sidighi was deliberately indifferent by delaying medical 

treatment. As noted above, the Court must accept all the allegations of the Complaint as 

true, view those allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, and construe those 

allegations liberally based on his pro se status. Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 340, 342. Viewing 

the allegations in that light, the Court finds Plaintiff has plausibly alleged Dr. Sidighi was 

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need by delaying medical care. Although 

the Complaint alleges Dr. Sidighi did see Plaintiff and send him to the hospital in less 

than three days, it appears from the allegations of the Complaint that it was not until at 

least a day later14 that Dr. Sidighi saw Plaintiff and sent him to the emergency room. (Id.

 

14 As noted throughout, the dates these events occurred is not entirely clear, but Plaintiff 

does state that he was seen by Nurse Sanchez with Dr. Sidighi refusing to send him out to 

the emergency room on one day and that he was not seen by Dr. Sidighi until the 

following day. (ECF No. 1 at 14-15.) He describes the pain becoming so unbearable he 

wanted to commit suicide, going to crisis bed on that basis, and seeing his mental health 

doctors the “following morning.” (Id. at 15.) Those doctors seeing him and contacting 

Dr. Sidighi allegedly prompted Dr. Sidighi to see Plaintiff. 

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 44 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 21
14

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

at 15.) “[M]ere delay of surgery, without more, is insufficient to state a claim of 

deliberate medical indifference.” Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison, 766 F.2d 404, 

407 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106). However, Plaintiff has alleged 

sufficient harm from the delay. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106 (finding “a prisoner must 

allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious 

medical needs). During this period of delay, Plaintiff was in such extreme pain that he 

wanted to commit suicide and was sent for mental health care as a result. (Id.) 

Additionally, he vaguely alleges he has suffered lifetime permanent injury. (Id. at 8.) 

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged Dr. Sidighi was deliberately 

indifferent to a serious medical need by delaying medical treatment for a serious and 

painful medical condition. 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 

claim against Dr. Sidighi be DENIED. 

II. Leave to Amend Regarding Officer Laxamanna and Dr. Newton

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to assert Eighth Amendment claims against Officer 

Laxamanna and Dr. Newton. (ECF No. 21.) The Court recommends leave to amend be 

granted as to Dr. Newton because the Plaintiff may be able to correct the defects in the 

Complaint as to him. The Court recommends leave to amend be denied as to Officer 

Laxamanna because the proposed amendment would be futile and Plaintiff will be unable 

to amend his claim as to Officer Laxamanna to state a claim without contradicting the

allegations in the Complaint. 

A. Standard for Leave to Amend

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend should be 

freely granted “when justice so requires.” Courts consider five factors in assessing the 

propriety of leave to amend—bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, 

futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. 

Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, there is no record of 

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 44 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 21
15

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

delay, prejudice, bad faith, or previous amendments. Therefore, the only factor to 

consider is whether amendment would be futile.

Leave to amend “is properly denied . . . if amendment would be futile.” Carrico v. 

City and Cnty. of San Francisco, 656 F3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Gordon v. 

City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010)). However, if a plaintiff “may be 

able to amend [his] complaint to state a claim that will survive a motion to dismiss . . . 

denial of leave to amend on the ground of futility is improper.” Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n. of 

Retired Employees v. Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1118 (9th Cir. 2013). 

B. Dr. Newton

As to Dr. Newton, Plaintiff seeks to further allege that Nurse Sanchez spoke to Dr.

Newton about Plaintiff’s condition and Dr. Newton “was one of the 3 Jane and John 

Does” that were mentioned in the Complaint. (ECF No. 21 at 3.) The Complaint alleges

that three unknown nurses examined Plaintiff. (ECF No. 1 at 15.) Although, as 

previously noted the dates are not entirely clear, this examination would have been the 

day before he was first sent to the emergency room. (Id.) These individuals allegedly 

indicated they did not have authorization to send him to an outside emergency room and 

that Dr. Sidighi had stated he would see Plaintiff in three days. (Id.) 

In seeking leave to amend, Plaintiff notes that Dr. Newton is listed on Plaintiff’s

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Form 7464 Triage & 

Treatment Services Flow Sheet (“Triage Sheet”)15 that indicates Plaintiff was suffering 

from “Priphrism.” (ECF No. 21 at 4.) Plaintiff also seeks to allege that Dr. Newton had 

the authority to write an order for Plaintiff to be transported to the emergency room but 

refused to do so. (Id.) Similar to Plaintiff’s claims against Dr. Sidighi, Plaintiff seeks to 

allege that Dr. Newton delayed Plaintiff’s medical treatment for a serious medical need 

rising to the level of deliberate indifference. (Id.) 

 

15 The form is attached as part of Exhibit B to the original Complaint following the 

Medical Slip. (ECF No. 1 at 21-24)

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 44 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of

 21
16

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

Plaintiff’s claims as to Dr. Newton may rise to the level of deliberate indifference 

because Plaintiff can allege that Dr. Newton was aware of his serious medical need and

denied care. Although Plaintiff was sent to the emergency room the day after Dr. 

Newton allegedly physically examined him, Plaintiff can allege that he was denied care 

in the interim. The length of the delay may be slightly shorter than that asserted as to Dr. 

Sidighi, but it would have been at least from the afternoon of one day to the morning of 

the next. Notably, it was in this interim that Plaintiff was sent to “crisis bed” as a result 

of wanting to commit suicide from the extreme pain of his condition. (ECF No. 1 at 15.) 

Liberally construing Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court cannot find amendment as to Dr. 

Newton would be futile. Given the other factors also weigh in favor of leave to amend, 

particularly having no previous attempts to amend, the Court RECOMMENDS 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend be GRANTED as to Dr. Newton.

C. Officer Laxamanna

The Order dismissing Officer Laxamanna pursuant to §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A

explained that Plaintiff’s only allegations as to Officer Laxamanna were that Plaintiff

notified him that he was having a “medical emergency” while he was at the law library, 

Officer Laxamanna escorted Plaintiff back to his cell, and Officer Laxamanna notified 

the nurses on staff to come see Plaintiff. (ECF No. 14 at 8.) 

In seeking leave to amend Plaintiff reiterates that Officer Laxamanna was 

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need because he did not immediately 

summon a paramedic. (ECF No. 21 at 2; ECF No. 41 at 14.) As noted above, that is not 

a new allegation.16 The screening Order indicates Officer Laxamanna’s only obligation 

when Plaintiff notified Officer Laxamanna “that he was having a ‘medical emergency’ 

 

16 The only new allegations Plaintiff would assert as to this interaction are that a member 

of the law library staff observed Plaintiff in pain, inquired what was wrong, and called 

Officer Laxamanna at Plaintiff’s request. (ECF No. 41 at 14.) This does not alter the 

analysis of whether Officer Laxamanna’s response to Plaintiff’s medical condition was 

deliberately indifferent. 

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 44 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of

 21
17

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

while he was at the RJD law library” was to “notify[] RJD medical staff of Plaintiff’s 

complaints.” (ECF No. 14 at 8.) The Order goes on to conclude that Officer Laxamanna 

was not deliberately indifferent because the Complaint alleged that he did notify medical 

staff of Plaintiff’s condition. (Id.) Although, as explained below, Plaintiff now alleges 

Officer Laxamanna did not notify medical staff of Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff also 

alleges that Officer Laxamanna knew the medical staff was aware of Plaintiff’s condition 

and attempting to see him. 

Plaintiff now seeks to clarify that he did not allege Officer Laxamanna notified the 

nurses of his condition and seeks to allege the opposite — that Officer Laxamanna did 

not notify the nurses of Plaintiff’s condition.

17

 (ECF No. 21 at 3.) He asserts that he was 

seen by Nurse Sanchez later that day because of his previously submitted Medical Slip, 

not because Officer Laxamanna notified them of his condition. (Id.) He emphasizes that 

his Complaint alleges that as he was being escorted to his cell he and Officer Laxamanna 

ran into Officer Alvarado, the unit’s medical officer. (ECF No. 21 at 2; ECF 1 at 13.) 

She indicated that she had been looking for him to be seen by the nurses. (ECF No. 1 at 

13.) Although she did not take him at the time because the nurse was out of the building, 

he was taken to see the nurse later by another officer. (Id.) He also seeks to add 

allegations that Nurse Sanchez indicated that she was seeing him in response to his 

Medical Slip. (ECF No. 21 at 3.) Plaintiff argues that Officer Alvarado’s statement that 

she was already looking for him when Plaintiff was coming back with Officer 

Laxamanna shows that he was taken to see the nurses because of his Medical Slip, not as 

 

17 These allegations do not directly contradict the allegations of the Complaint. Plaintiff 

does not specifically allege Officer Laxamanna did or did not ask the nurses to see him in 

the Complaint. Plaintiff alleges that when Plaintiff told Officer Laxamanna that he 

needed to be sent to an outside emergency room, “Officer Laxamanna stated that he will 

escort me back to my cell and ask the ad-seg housing unit (Nurse Station) to see me.” 

(ECF No. 1 at 13.) Because Plaintiff was seen later that day by Nurse Sanchez, it was not 

unreasonable to infer that Officer Laxamanna did notify the medical staff, but he did not 

specifically allege the nurses were notified by Officer Laxamanna.

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 44 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of

 21
18

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

a result of a request by Officer Laxamanna. (ECF No. 21 at 3.) The Court would agree 

this is a reasonable interpretation. However, these same allegations undermine any 

deliberate indifference claim as to Officer Laxamanna. 

Based on these allegations, Officer Laxamanna was notified not only that the 

medical staff was aware he needed to be seen, but also that the medical staff was already 

attempting to see him and he would be seen as soon as the nurse returned. These 

allegations reflect the absence of deliberate indifference. “A prison official is 

deliberately indifferent . . . if he ‘knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate 

health.’” Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Farmer, 511 

U.S. at 837) (emphasis added). Even assuming Officer Laxamanna was aware of an 

excessive risk to Plaintiff’s health from his complaints at the law library, Plaintiff cannot 

plead Officer Laxamanna “disregard[ed] that risk by failing to take reasonable measures 

to abate it” when Officer Laxamanna knew the medical staff was already aware he 

needed to be seen and was attempting to see him. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847. The 

additional allegations Plaintiff proposes do not alter this conclusion because he continues 

to allege Officer Laxamanna was notified that the medical staff was attempting to see 

Plaintiff for his condition and he was going to be seen soon. In this respect, the proposed 

amendment would be futile. 

Plaintiff would also not be able to amend his allegations to contradict these 

allegations because “[a] party cannot amend pleadings to ‘directly contradic[t] an earlier 

assertion made in the same proceeding.’” Airs Aromatics, LLC v. Opinion Victoria’s 

Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc., 744 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Russell v. 

Rolfs, 893 F.2d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 

F.2d 291, 296–97 (9th Cir. 1990) (explaining an “amended complaint may only allege 

other facts consistent with the challenged pleading”).

Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave 

to Amend as to Officer Laxamanna be DENIED. 

///

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 44 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 18 of

 21
19

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

III. Miscellaneous Motions

A. Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 29)

On March 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document the Court construed as an Opposition 

to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and a Motion for Extension of Time to file an 

Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 29.) The Court has considered his arguments in 

opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. As to the Motion for an Extension of Time, it is 

DENIED as moot because Plaintiff has filed and the Court has considered his Motion for 

Leave to Amend and all his filings in support of it.

B. Motion Requesting an Early Settlement Conference (ECF No. 31)

On March 6, 2017, Plaintiff also filed a Notice of Change of Address and a Motion 

Requesting an Early Settlement Conference. (ECF No. 31.) The Court DENIES the 

request for a settlement conference. Given the procedural posture of the case and 

Plaintiff’s settlement demand, the Court finds a settlement conference is unlikely to be 

productive at this time.18 Plaintiff’s address was updated.19

C. Letter Requesting Excusable Neglect (ECF No. 33)

Plaintiff also filed a letter requesting a grant of Excusable Neglect on March 6, 

2017. (ECF No. 33.) This appears to be related to Plaintiff not being able to timely file an 

Amended Complaint. As discussed above, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Leave to Amend and all subsequent filings in support. Thus, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s request for Excusable Neglect as moot. 

///

///

 

18 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.1.e.8. Early Neutral Evaluation Conferences (“ENE”) 

are generally not held in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, the Court will 

consider whether an ENE is appropriate when the pleadings are settled.

19 Plaintiff’s address has since been updated to reflect his current incarceration at

California State Prison – Lancaster. (ECF No. 43.)

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 44 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 19 of

 21
20

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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

D. Motion for Amended Complaint (ECF No. 41)

On June 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 41.) 

As discussed above, the Court has considered this filing in making a recommendation on 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend. Included at the conclusion of this filing is a 

document captioned Motion for Summary Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 56. (Id. at 33-36.) Plaintiff seeks summary judgment because he attempted to 

settle his case for $500,000 without adding back additional defendants. (Id. at 33.) He 

then reduced his settlement offer to $350,000 and then $250,000. (Id.) He argues this is 

a very good offer as compared to the settlement a friend obtained. (Id.) Otherwise, 

Plaintiff generally asserts “there are no undisputed[sic] facts that defendants can dispute, 

they are responsible for Plaintiff’s permanent damages.” (Id.) He cites no evidence for 

these conclusions, as required by Rule 56(c). And, Plaintiff has certainly not shown 

“that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that [he] is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law” as required for summary judgment under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 56(a). The Court RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment be DENIED.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motions for extension of time, requesting an early settlement 

conference, and requesting excusable neglect are DENIED for the reasons stated above. 

(ECF Nos. 29, 31, 33.) Plaintiff’s request that the Court consider his additional proposed 

allegations in support of leave to amend in lieu of filing a late Reply in support of his 

Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED. (ECF No. 43.) 

The Court submits this Report and Recommendation to United States District 

Judge Dana M. Sabraw. For the reasons outlined above, the undersigned 

RECOMMENDS the following:

(1) Dr. Sidighi’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25) be DENIED,

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 21) be 

GRANTED as to Dr. Newton and DENIED as to Officer Laxamanna, and

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 44 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 20 of

 21
21

16cv2244 DMS (BGS)

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) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 41 at 33-36) be 

DENIED.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any party to this action may file written 

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties no later than August 30, 2017. 

The document should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any Reply to the Objections shall be filed with 

the Court and served on all parties no later than September 6, 2017. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s Order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 

449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: August 10, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 44 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 21 of

 21