Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01475/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01475-16/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 This action is referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1

§ 636(b)(1)(B), Local General Order No. 262, and E.D. Cal. L.R. (“Local Rule”) 302.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARRY P. WATSON, 

Plaintiff, No. 2:06-cv-1475 LKK KJN P

vs.

J. TORRUELLA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with newly appointed counsel in this civil

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action was reassigned to the undersigned

magistrate judge on February 9, 2010, and a status conference held on April 1, 2010. Attorneys 1

Mari Overbeck and Sean Meenan appeared on behalf of plaintiff; defendants were represented by

Steven Gevercer, appearing on behalf of attorney Stephen Pass. 

Plaintiff proceeds on his amended complaint filed April 27, 2007 (Dkt. No. 12),

wherein he alleged that defendant physicians were deliberately indifferent to a medical condition

involving plaintiff’s right thumb, eventually diagnosed as squamous cell carcinoma. The court

found a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against these defendants (Dkt. No. 16) and ordered

Case 2:06-cv-01475-LKK -KJN Document 49 Filed 04/02/10 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

service upon them (Dkt. No. 18). Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No.

29), which the district judge denied on October 7, 2009 (Dkt. No. 40). In addition, the district

judge found that plaintiff stated a claim for medical malpractice and ordered that counsel be

appointed for plaintiff and defendants be permitted the opportunity to move for summary

judgment on that claim. Pursuant to order filed February 17, 2010, this court appointed counsel

for plaintiff and set a status conference to address, inter alia, what additional discovery the parties

require (discovery previously closed on June 13, 2008 (Dkt. No. 21)).

Pursuant to the conference and the court’s review of this action, the parties were

and are HEREBY ORDERED to file, on or before April 22, 2010, a joint statement which: 

(1) specifically identifies all further discovery which each party seeks; (2) suggests mutually

acceptable and reasonable shortened-time deadlines for completing each item or category of

discovery, including recommended dates for concluding expert disclosures, obtaining expert

depositions, and all further discovery; (3) recommend, only if applicable, a dispositive motion

deadline should defendants intend to file a motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s

malpractice claim; and (4) should defendants decline to file a motion for summary judgment,

provide agreed-upon recommended and alternate dates for jury trial, including the estimated

length of trial.

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 1, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

wats1475.OrdStRpt 

Case 2:06-cv-01475-LKK -KJN Document 49 Filed 04/02/10 Page 2 of 2