Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02110/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02110-5/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 

Larry Giraldes, Jr.,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 01-2110 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

T. Prebula, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoDefendants seek summary judgment. Plaintiff seeks an order

denying the motion or continuing the proceedings thereon pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).

A court may deny a motion for summary judgment or continue

proceedings thereon to permit discovery when an opposing party

shows by affidavit that it cannot present facts essential to

justify the party’s opposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). The

party seeking discovery must identify the information sought and

show how it would affect summary judgment. Mackey v. Pioneer 

Case 2:01-cv-02110-LKK-EFB Document 95 Filed 01/06/06 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

Nat’l Bank, 876 F.2d 520, 523 (9th Cir. 1989); Garrett v. City

and County of San Francisco, 815 F.2d 1515, 1518 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Plaintiff alleges defendant Sauhkla, upon instruction from

defendants Prebula and Gavia, drafted a memorandum authorizing 

plaintiff’s transfer from California Medical Facility (CMF) to

High Desert State Prison (HDSP) and Dr. Andreasen approved the

transfer knowing HDSP could not provide adequate medical care for

his severe digestive problems, Hepatitis C and knee problems and

that within days of the September 28, 2001, transfer plaintiff

began to suffer vomiting and intestinal bleeding but was denied

medical attention upon the ground the necessary care was

unavailable at HDSP. Defendants move for summary judgment upon

the ground there is no genuine dispute about whether they were

deliberately indifferent.

Plaintiff seeks his medical records. But the question

before the court is not the kind or quality of care he has

received but whether defendants knew plaintiff would receive

inadequate care at HDSP and there is no reason to believe

plaintiff’s medical records at CMF would enlighten defendant’s

knowledge about the quality of care plaintiff would receive after

transfer tp HDSP.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request is denied. 

So ordered.

Dated: January 5, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:01-cv-02110-LKK-EFB Document 95 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 2