Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02110/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02110-9/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY GIRALDES, JR.,

NO. CIV. S-01-2110 LKK/PAN (JFM)

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

PREBULA, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint seeking relief

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that defendants were

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and

inappropriately authorized his medical transfer from California

Medical Facility (“CMF”) to High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”). On

January 24, 2006, the magistrate judge issued findings and

recommendations recommending this court deny plaintiff’s

preliminary injunction and grant defendant’s motion for summary

judgment. 

////

Case 2:01-cv-02110-LKK-EFB Document 102 Filed 03/27/06 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

2

The magistrate judge’s findings states that “[t]here is no

evidence that implicates [defendants] in any wrongdoing.”

Plaintiff, however, asserts that defendants knew he would not

receive adequate care for Hepatitis-C at HDSP, and indeed, it

appears the record raises several disputed material facts. First,

a physician at HDSP initially questioned whether plaintiff’s

medical needs could be satisfied at HDSP. Further, plaintiff

states in his objections that he has previously pointed out to the

court that defendants drafted fraudulent documents and were

complicit in transferring him to a facility that could not provide

him adequate medical care. From what the court can tell, disputed

facts exist warranting closer scrutiny of the parties’ evidence and

the motions pending before the court.

For the reasons set forth above, the court DECLINES to adopt

the magistrate judge’s January 24, 2006 findings and

recommendations and REMANDS the case to the magistrate judge for

further proceedings consistent with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 24, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:01-cv-02110-LKK-EFB Document 102 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 2