Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01367/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01367-0/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Michael O. Marich,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 02-1367 FCD PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

D. K. Butler, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff claims defendant Butler, warden at California

State Prison Folsom continues to violate plaintiff’s rights under

the Eighth Amendment by denying adequate medical care for, and

appropriate work classification in light of, his progressive

degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine, hypertension and

Hepatitis C. Plaintiff seeks only injunctive relief including

adequate diagnosis of his diseases, physical therapy,

classification as medically unassigned and transfer to a medical

facility. 

Case 2:02-cv-01367-FCD-PAN Document 38 Filed 06/01/05 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

2

September 24, 2004, the court granted summary judgment for

defendant in part, adjudicating in defendant’s favor all claims

except those concerning the propriety of plaintiff’s work

assignment as related to his medical restrictions.

Defendant now seeks summary judgment on the remaining issue. 

Defendant contends plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief on

this issue is moot because he was transferred to California State

Prison--Solano July 28, 2004. 

Plaintiff opposed March 3, 2005, claiming that his medical

condition still mandates he be medically unassigned.

In seeking summary judgment the moving party must establish

no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

An issue is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable

jury could return a verdict for the opposing party. Anderson v.

Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986). A fact is “material” if

it affects the right to recover under applicable substantive law. 

Id. The moving party must submit evidence that establishes

issues upon which the movant bears the burden of proof; if the

movant does not bear the burden of proof on an issue, the movant

need only point to the absence of evidence to support the

opponent’s burden. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324

(1986). To avoid summary judgment on an issue upon which the

opponent bears the burden of proof, the opponent must present

affirmative evidence sufficiently probative such that a jury

reasonably could decide the issue in favor of the opponent. 

Case 2:02-cv-01367-FCD-PAN Document 38 Filed 06/01/05 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

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,

588 (1986). 

Claims that a prisoner’s assigned work exceeds his physical

capacity are covered under the Eighth Amendment and require a

showing that an official was deliberately indifferent to a known

serious medical need. Mays v. Rhodes, 255 F.3d 644, 649 (8th

Cir. 2001), citing Choate v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370, 1373-4 (8th

Cir. 1993). “In this context, deliberate indifference requires a

showing defendant knowingly compelled petitioner to perform

physical labor that was beyond his strength, dangerous to his

health, or unduly painful.” Mays at 649, citing Choate at 1374

and Williams v. Norris, 148 F.3d 983, 987 (8th Cir. 1998).

Petitioner’s claim for injunctive relief is moot with

respect to defendant Butler because plaintiff is no longer

confined under Butler’s authority. Weinstein v. Bradford, 423

U.S. 147, 148-49 (1975); Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401-

03; Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (9th Cir. 1995). This

court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin the conduct of any unnamed

official at California State Prison--Solano.

Accordingly, the court hereby recommends defendant’s

September 20, 2004, supplemental motion for summary judgment be

granted and judgment be entered for defendant.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

Case 2:02-cv-01367-FCD-PAN Document 38 Filed 06/01/05 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

4

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: May 31, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:02-cv-01367-FCD-PAN Document 38 Filed 06/01/05 Page 4 of 4