Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00988/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00988-14/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH SCHULTZ, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, 

et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1: 11-cv-00988-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO: 

1) DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 51.)

2) DENY DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 71.)

3) GRANT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

CORRECTION (ECF No. 77.)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 6.) The action 

proceeds against Defendant Kim on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment inadequate medical 

care claim. (ECF Nos. 9 & 22.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of California.

On September 14, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and 

Recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 51.), deny 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 71.), and grant Plaintiff’s motion 

Case 1:11-cv-00988-DAD-MJS Document 84 Filed 11/17/15 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

27

28

2

for correction (ECF No. 77.). On September 17, 2015, Defendant filed objections to the 

Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 80.) Plaintiff filed objections and a 

response to Defendant’s objections. (ECF Nos. 81, 82, 83.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has 

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by 

proper analysis.

Defendant contends that although the Magistrate Judge accurately laid out the 

case law for a medical indifference claim, the Judge failed to properly analyze the 

undisputed facts under that authority. Defendant disputes the finding that Plaintiff’s 

medical records contradict Dr. Barnett’s declaration, that he failed to provide treatment 

for Plaintiff’s chronic fatigue syndrome and depression, that he acted with medical 

indifference by not prescribing Plaintiff any pain medication, and that any factual 

disputes exist foreclosing a ruling on qualified immunity. 

In response, Plaintiff contends that Defendant never told him to diet and exercise 

in order to treat his chronic fatigue syndrome and depression; Plaintiff has always been 

underweight and could not exercise at the time. 

The Court has reviewed the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and 

will address Defendant’s objections in turn. 

Dr. Barnett opined that Dr. Kim’s advice to Plaintiff on July 22, 2009 to “live with 

the pain” was reasonable given Plaintiff “was jogging daily.” (ECF No. 71-3 at 6.) The 

Magistrate Judge’s finding that during that time, Plaintiff complained of having difficulty 

walking and not being able to jog is supported by the record. Plaintiff’s medical records 

indicate that: on July 12, 2009 Plaintiff complained it was “often hard to pick things up 

off the floor or just to walk” (ECF No. 51 at 38.); on August 2, 2009, Plaintiff complained 

“muscle pain getting worse. Getting hard to walk now.” (ECF No. 51 at 42.); and on 

August 4. 2009, Plaintiff reported “I can’t jog anymore.” (ECF No. 51 at 43.) Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:11-cv-00988-DAD-MJS Document 84 Filed 11/17/15 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

27

28

3

report several months later that he was able to jog if he took ibuprofen does not change 

the contradiction in Dr. Barnett’s declaration about Plaintiff’s ability to jog daily when Dr. 

Kim saw him in July 2009.

Defendant argues he treated Plaintiff by recommending that he diet and exercise. 

Defendant’s progress notes lists “diet, exercise” under the section for “education 

provided.” (ECF No. 71-3 at 23.) It does not state whether this was the treatment 

available and/or provided for Plaintiff’s pain nor does Dr. Kim’s declaration shed light on 

the treatment available and provided to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 71-2 at 1-3.) In his 

opposition, Plaintiff avers that Defendant never told him to diet and exercise, that he 

was already underweight, and his medical records indicate he was unable to exercise at 

the time. These factual disputes support the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the record 

was not clear on what treatment was available and provided to Plaintiff.

The Magistrate Judge did not recommend that Defendant’s motion be denied 

because he did not provide Plaintiff with a pain medication other than Naproxen. The 

Magistrate Judge simply noted another ambiguity in the record regarding Defendant’s 

argument that Plaintiff was already taking Naproxen for his pain.

Because of the above factual disputes and ambiguities in the record, the 

Magistrate Judge correctly recommended that Defendant is not entitled to summary 

judgment on qualified immunity grounds

In Plaintiff’s objections, he essentially rehashes his arguments raised in his 

motion for summary judgment. He argues that his administrative appeal and medical 

records clearly demonstrate that Defendant acted with deliberate indifference. Plaintiff’s 

objections also do not raise an issue of law or fact under the Findings and 

Recommendations. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 79.) filed 

on September 14, 2015 in full;

Case 1:11-cv-00988-DAD-MJS Document 84 Filed 11/17/15 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

27

28

4

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 51.) is DENIED;

3. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 71.) is DENIED; and

4. Plaintiff’s motion for correction (ECF No. 77.) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00988-DAD-MJS Document 84 Filed 11/17/15 Page 4 of 4