Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00079/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00079-6/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

GUADALUPE TORRES,

NO. CIV. S-04-79 LKK/GGH P

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

HEMSLEY, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

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 General Order No. 262.

On November 8, 2005, the magistrate filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on all parties. The court

has reviewed the file and the findings and recommendations issued

by the magistrate judge and finds that the decision is not

sufficiently supported by the record. There remains a disputed

material fact about the nature of the injury to plaintiff’s eye at

Case 2:04-cv-00079-GGH Document 48 Filed 02/01/06 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

2

the time that he sought medical care via Officer Hemsley. 

Additionally, it is also disputed whether defendant, or the nurse,

decided that the medical care could be delayed until later that

evening. In order to determine whether Hensley exhibited

deliberate indifference with regards to plaintiff’s injury, a

determination must be made about whether a serious medical need

existed. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 299 (1991). Taking all

reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff at this time, the

court finds that summary judgment is inappropriate because it is

disputed whether plaintiff faced a substantial risk of serious

harm. 

The magistrate judge found that, based on the facts plaintiff

provided, defendant could have reasonably inferred that plaintiff’s

injury was not an emergency and that he could wait to be seen that

evening during pill call, and therefore that defendant was entitled

to qualified immunity. However, this court finds that by taking

all inferences in favor of the plaintiff, it is not possible to

determine at this time whether the defendant acted reasonably in

not ensuring that plaintiff received prompt medical care. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court DECLINES to adopt the magistrate judge’s

November 8, 2005 findings and recommendations; and

////

////

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-00079-GGH Document 48 Filed 02/01/06 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

3

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 1, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-00079-GGH Document 48 Filed 02/01/06 Page 3 of 3