Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02061/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02061-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE LUIS MAGANA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2061 DFL KJM P

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY MAIN

JAIL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a former county jail inmate 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 General Order No. 262.

On January 31, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

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

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court does not adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. A genuine

issue of material fact exists as to whether defendants exhibited intentional indifference to a

Case 2:03-cv-02061-JKS-KJM Document 100 Filed 03/29/07 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

serious medical need when, despite plaintiff’s chrono and medical records, they declined to

provide supportive shoes to plaintiff. The chrono is sufficiently clear for a reasonable jury to

find that defendants “deliberately ignore[d] the express orders of” plaintiff’s doctor. Jet v.

Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). Accordingly, defendants’

motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

DATED: March 29, 2007

/s/ David F. Levi 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02061-JKS-KJM Document 100 Filed 03/29/07 Page 2 of 2