Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02192/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02192-10/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EARL D. SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R. RODRIGUEZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-2192 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner 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 Rule 302. 

 On August 25, 2015, 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 fourteen days. ECF No. 72. Defendant 

Singh has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 74. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

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. 

In his objections, defendant contends it is undisputed that on November 8, 2012, he 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 88 Filed 12/09/15 Page 1 of 3
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

worked one shift at Mule Creek State Prison from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Defendant argues that 

he could not have been present when the alleged violation of plaintiff’s rights occurred because 

plaintiff’s CT scan took place at 1:10 p.m. at San Joaquin General Hospital,1 during the time 

defendant was working his shift at Mule Creek State Prison. 

As a preliminary matter, the court notes that in his objections, defendant relies in part on 

evidence that was not part of the record when his motion for summary judgment was filed on 

February 18, 2015.2 Specifically, defendant relies on his responses to plaintiff’s discovery 

requests,3 and a CDCR “Triage and Treatment Flow Sheet” indicating that on November 8, 2012 

plaintiff was “escorted by custody for transport” at 11:15 a.m.4

 “[A] district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider evidence presented for 

the first time in a party’s objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation. Ahktar v. Mesa, 698 

F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted). “[I]n making a decision on whether 

to consider newly offered evidence, the district court must actually exercise its discretion, rather 

than summarily accepting or denying the motion.” Id. Here, the court declines to consider the 

above documents, which were not properly submitted as evidence in support of defendant’s 

summary judgment motion. See Ahktar, 698 F.3d at 1208. The court further finds that even if 

this evidence were to be considered, it would not change the result in this case, as explained 

below. 

 

1

 Although defendant now asserts that plaintiff’s CT scan took place at 1:10 p.m. on November 8, 

2015, he did not reference the specific time of plaintiff’s appointment in his motion for summary 

judgment. See ECF No. 79. However, the report from San Joaquin General Hospital indicating 

that plaintiff’s exam was completed at 13:13, or 1:13 p.m. on November 8, 2012, was attached as 

an exhibit to plaintiff’s complaint. See ECF No. 1 at 29. 

2

 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was filed two months before discovery closed and 

seven months before the dispositive motion deadline expired. 

3

 In his reply brief on summary judgment, defendant stated that he served plaintiff with his 

discovery responses on March 11, 2015. ECF No. 56 at 3. Defendant attached copies of the 

proofs of service as exhibits to his reply brief, but did not attach copies of his actual responses to 

plaintiff’s discovery requests. See ECF No. 56-1. Defendant’s discovery responses were first 

offered as evidence in defendant’s objections to the findings and recommendations of the 

magistrate judge. See ECF Nos. 74-1, 74-2. 

4

 It appears that the “Triage and Treatment Flow Sheet” was first submitted by defendant Rogero 

on June 25, 2014, see ECF No. 69-5 at 4, over four months after defendant Singh’s summary 

judgment motion was filed. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 88 Filed 12/09/15 Page 2 of 3
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

The magistrate found that while defendant’s evidence established that he worked at Mule 

Creek State Prison from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on November 8, 2012, ECF No. 72 at 10-11, 

plaintiff’s evidence called the weight of defendant’s evidence into question such that a rational 

trier of fact could find that defendant was at San Joaquin General Hospital during the time he was 

assigned to work at Mule Creek State Prison, id. at 13. While defendant stated in his discovery 

his responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests that he was not present at San Joaquin General 

Hospital on November 8, 2012, his sworn statements are not sufficient on summary judgment to 

overcome plaintiff’s sworn statements to the contrary. See S.E.C. v. Koracorp Industries, Inc., 

575 F.2d 692, 699 (9th Cir. 1978) (“[S]ummary judgment is singularly inappropriate where 

credibility is at issue.”). Thus, even taking defendant’s discovery responses into account, there is 

still a factual dispute as to whether defendant was present at San Joaquin General Hospital on 

November 8, 2012. 

To the extent defendant’s objections are based on his assertions that plaintiff departed 

Mule Creek State Prison at 11:15 a.m. and had a CT scan at 1:10 p.m. at San Joaquin General 

Hospital, defendant’s argument is unconvincing. With respect to defendant’s motion, the time of 

plaintiff’s appointment is only significant if the parties agree that defendant actually worked his 

assigned shift at Mule Creek State Prison from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on November 8, 2012. 

Because this fact remains disputed, see ECF No. 72 at 13, defendant is not entitled to summary 

judgment. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 25, 2015, are adopted in full; and 

 2. Defendant Singh’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No.49) is denied without 

prejudice to the filing of a summary judgment motion on alternate grounds, or joinder in 

defendant Rogero’s motion for summary for summary judgment. 

DATED: December 8, 2015 

 /s/ John A. Mendez_______________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAM-AC Document 88 Filed 12/09/15 Page 3 of 3