Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01701/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01701-2/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

 Plaintiff’s original complaint was filed on August 24, 2005 upon transfer of this case

from the Northern District. 

2

 Plaintiff’s amended complaint names nine defendants, including Jeanne Woodford.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAM CONSIGLIO,

Plaintiff, CIV S-05-1701 GEB GGH P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, Director of

the California Department of Corrections, ORDER &

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

The court, by separate order, has now found plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed

on September 13, 2005, appropriate for service.1 By order filed on September 2, 2005, the court

construed plaintiff’s letter, filed on September 1, 2005, as a motion for a temporary restraining

order (TRO), wherein plaintiff threatened to commit suicide should an anticipated immediate

transfer from Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP) occur before he received treatment for painful

injuries from which he has claimed to be suffering. The undersigned directed a response within

ten days from the only defendant, Jeanne Woodford, named in plaintiff’s original complaint,

against whom this court found plaintiff’s claims colorable.2 The undersigned also ordered both

Case 2:05-cv-01701-GEB-GGH Document 19 Filed 09/20/05 Page 1 of 12
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 Attorney General and defendant Woodford to “take any steps necessary to contact prison

authorities and staff at Mule Creek State Prison to monitor plaintiff in light of his suicide threat.” 

See Order, filed on September 2, 2005. Defendant’s response was filed timely.

In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that in January 2000, he suffered a

serious knee injury in the prison laundry that has never been treated properly. First Amended

Complaint (FAC), p. 3. Due to the defendants’ deliberate indifference to, and long delay in

treating, this serious injury, plaintiff now needs an artificial joint replacement in that knee. Id. 

In November of 2001, plaintiff suffered a serious back injury in the prison laundry

while at work, which has never been properly treated primarily because defendant Hernandez,

Warden at R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility, had plaintiff transferred “illegally” in 2004

despite a medical hold placed on plaintiff. FAC, p. 4. The transfer was in retaliation for

plaintiff’s having exposed the physical and sexual abuse of mentally ill inmates. Id. Defendant

Hernandez placed plaintiff in administrative segregation for over three months on false charges

that were never adjudicated and had plaintiff transferred without a hearing in violation of due

process. Id. 

On April 15, 2002, plaintiff sustained a third injury in the prison laundry, tearing

the rotator cuff in his right shoulder, an injury which has never been treated. Defendant Dr.

Bradley Williams, a doctor at Doctor’s Hospital at Manteca, under contract with Mule Creek

State Prison (MCSP), delayed, and ultimately denied, treatment, ordering in the interim costly

and unnecessary tests. Id. 

Following plaintiff’s “illegal” transfer, on January 26, 2004, to Folsom State

Prison, he was transferred by the end of March, 2004 to CMC-E, a “supposed” medical treatment

facility, when authorities at Folsom realized how much medical treatment plaintiff needed. Id. 

Defendant Marshall, Warden of CMC-E, had plaintiff transferred “illegally” to MCSP on August

11, 2004, by “falsifying” a CDC 1845 form. Id. 

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-01701-GEB-GGH Document 19 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 12
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

 At the time this letter was filed, plaintiff had not named Warden Campbell as a

defendant, but she is named in the now operative first amended complaint.

3

In the year plaintiff has been transferred to MCSP, plaintiff has received constant

threats of a retaliatory transfer for continuing to complain about not receiving adequate medical

care. Id. As of August 2005, five surgical procedures have been approved and scheduled for

plaintiff. Id. On August 2, 2005, when plaintiff appeared before the Unit Classification

Committee (UCC), he was told he would remain at MCSP for another year; shortly thereafter,

defendants Arnold, Reyes, Smith and Brett Williams “decided to get rid of plaintiff” despite his

pending surgical procedures. Id. Defendant Campbell, Warden of MCSP, has failed to protect

plaintiff from this retaliatory action. Id. The anticipated transfer is also an effort by MCSP to

avoid spending the $100,000 cost for all of plaintiff’s surgeries. Id. Defendant Woodford has

approved all of plaintiff’s transfers. FAC, p. 5. Plaintiff seeks both injunctive relief and

monetary damages. 

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

In the letter to which defendant Woodford has filed a response, plaintiff seeks a

TRO against defendant Warden Campbell to stop plaintiff’s immediate impending transfer from

MCSP without having received medical treatment for the injuries which cause him excruciating

pain. See, letter filed in this court on September 1, 2005.3 Plaintiff claims he will end his life if

he is transferred, that he has endured four transfers in 18 months and that the transfers are based

on a desire by MCSP officials to avoid covering the cost of his surgeries. Id. 

In a subsequent letter directed to Judge Karlton, filed on September 2, 2005,

plaintiff makes the same complaint, adding that he has been suffering for five and a half years. 

In yet another letter to the undersigned, filed in this court on September 6, 2005, plaintiff restates

the urgency of his need, stating that he will either be killed by staff or end his life once he has

been transferred. 

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-01701-GEB-GGH Document 19 Filed 09/20/05 Page 3 of 12
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 4

 By separate order, the court has directed that the King Hall Civil Rights Clinic review

plaintiff’s case and consider appointment as voluntary counsel.

4

In a later letter to the court, filed in this court on September 9, 2005, plaintiff

states that on the morning of September 7, 2005, the UCC had ordered his transfer to Salinas

Valley State Prison (SVSP), despite his pending scheduled and approved surgeries and despite

this court’s order filed September 2, 2005. According to plaintiff, an unidentified captain stated:

“I don’t care about any federal court order, I run this yard.” See, 9/9/05 letter. Plaintiff includes

a copy of a notice of classification hearing, dated August 19, 2005, indicating that plaintiff was

being scheduled to appear before the UCC for “transfer consideration to SVSP.” Exhibit to

9/9/05 letter. Plaintiff states that a psychologist named Dr. White “is doing all he can to stop this

transfer....” See, 9/9/05 letter. Plaintiff avers that Dr. White sent a memo recommending

strongly that plaintiff not be transferred due to his medical status. Id. In this letter, plaintiff

claims to be in a “desperate” situation but says he is “not suicidal,” although he also adds that he

can no longer live with the pain. Id. Plaintiff asks for the court to appoint particular counsel for

him, Jane Kahn, of Rosen, Bien and Asara;4 he also claims to have been imprisoned for 14 years

for crimes he “absolutely did not commit.” Id. 

In the September 13, 2005 filing, wherein plaintiff files, inter alia, his amended

complaint, plaintiff says again that Dr. White, who is the chief psychologist, submitted a

memorandum urging that plaintiff not be transferred until plaintiff’s injuries are treated. Filing

of 9/13/05. Plaintiff states that Dr. White “has been going out of his way to help [plaintiff].” Id. 

According to plaintiff, Dr. White has told him he would testify in court or by phone that staff

should not have attempted a transfer of plaintiff under the circumstances. Id. Plaintiff, however,

does not include a copy of the Dr. White’s memo or any declaration from him among the exhibits

he submits. 

Apparently as background, plaintiff adds that before he was transferred to Folsom, 

he was transferred to Chino, and repeats some of the allegations of his first amended complaint. 

Case 2:05-cv-01701-GEB-GGH Document 19 Filed 09/20/05 Page 4 of 12
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

5

Id. Plaintiff claims that upon transfer it takes a year to have medical procedures re-scheduled. 

Id. Plaintiff alleges that keeping him transit is the way the state can avoid paying for his

surgeries and that he is a Level II inmate but he is being sent to another Level III facility. Id.

Finally, seeking to clarify earlier assertions, plaintiff states that when an

unidentified captain told him that staff would use a taser if necessary to transfer him, that is what

plaintiff meant would kill him because he has a serious heart condition. Id. Plaintiff appears to

be backpedaling somewhat when he states: “Yes, I have been contemplating suicide, but not here

at MCSP. With people like Dr. White, that will never happen here.” Id. Plaintiff avers that his

problem is not mental, but rather the unbearable physical pain he suffers. Plaintiff states that he

has begun having epidural injections and has had one in a series of three, a series that will take

six months. Id. He is also awaiting knee and shoulder surgery and a colonscopy. Id. Plaintiff

claims to urgently need an injunction so that his medical care will go forward. Id. 

Plaintiff includes an exhibit demonstrating that he has been issued a medical

chrono in the past for his medical condition, assigning him to a lower bunk and lower tier, and

allowing him a cane and an extra mattress. See chrono, dated 9/1/04, Exhibits filed on 9/13/05. 

In a chrono due to have just ended on 9/16/05, plaintiff was assigned to a lower bunk and

restricted in his duties and movements. See chrono, dated 9/11/04, Exhibits filed on 9/13/05. In

the same chrono, the doctor found that plaintiff did not meet the criteria of the Armstrong

Remedial Plan and that an 1845 was not warranted. Id. 

In plaintiff’s C-file it is noted by a Dr. Choo on November 21, 2002, that he is

undergoing treatment for three injuries, to his left knee, back and right shoulder, which occurred

in his laundry job. See Exhibits filed on 9/13/05. The same physician in a chrono dated March

7, 2003, notes plaintiff was undergoing “orthopedic and neurosurgical evaluation for a rotator

cuff tear and spinal stenosis,” and states that “he should be placed on a medical hold for the next

six months,” due to expire on September 10, 2003. Id. In a chrono from another physician, Dr.

Jenkins, dated August 18, 2003, the surgeon states that plaintiff “is undergoing neurosurgical

Case 2:05-cv-01701-GEB-GGH Document 19 Filed 09/20/05 Page 5 of 12
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

6

evaluation for spinal stenosis” and “should be placed on medical hold for 6 months....” Id. 

In a letter from the “Prison Law Office” in San Quentin, dated August 5, 2005,

plaintiff’s epidural injection on July 14, 2005 is referenced and it is noted that another was

requested on August 4, 2005; no evidence of an imminent transfer is found, but it is also set forth

that a Dr. Galloway stated that the current medical treatment would not require a medical hold. 

Id. A Physician’s Assistant (Todd) in a health care services request dated July 26, 2005, notes

that a B. Williams (now a defendant) recommended shoulder surgery for a rotator cuff torn three

years earlier and notes a confirming MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) on 11/5/04. Id. 

Physician’s Assistant Todd, on July 27 or 29, 2005, also notes that since March of 2003 a

procedure was recommended but not completed. Id. On 8/4/05, a second epidural was

requested by a physician, noting the good result of an earlier epidural in July of 2005. Id. 

On May 21, 2004, a Dr. Stevig signed a disability placement program verification,

indicating, inter alia, that plaintiff has a mobility impairment. Id. Plaintiff includes MRI reports

of the tear in his right shoulder rotator cuff, dated September 6, 2002 and November 5, 2004. Id.

Physician’s Assistant Todd responded at the first level to a 4/30/05 reasonable

modification/accommodation request by plaintiff for his medical problems, stating that plaintiff

had had an MRI on his left knee on January 31, 2005. 9/13/05 Additional Exhibits. Plaintiff is

told that he is at intermediate risk for surgery when evaluated for cardiac clearance, and that he is

scheduled to see (defendant) Dr. Williams for pre-op for cardiac clearance review for his

shoulder surgery. Id. A precise date cannot be given for “security reasons.” Id. Plaintiff’s

shoulder surgery has priority so his knee and back surgeries have not been recommended. Id. 

Plaintiff’s request is deemed partially granted. Plaintiff, however, deems the response false, in

his second level appeal on July 2, 2005, because defendant Dr. Williams told him on June 29,

2005, that his contract expired and he could not do the surgery. Id. Plaintiff also complains that

an epidural had been ordered 16 weeks earlier. Id. (Apparently, plaintiff received the first

epidural, as noted on, July 14, 2005).

Case 2:05-cv-01701-GEB-GGH Document 19 Filed 09/20/05 Page 6 of 12
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

5

 Counsel inadvertently states the year as 2006.

7

Defendant Woodford’s Response

Defendant Woodford’s counsel avers that defendant is exploring the best options

for plaintiff’s medical and mental health needs “consistent with custody considerations.” 

Response, p. 2. Defendant intends to supplement her response by September 23, 2005. Id. 

Counsel declares that upon receipt of this court’s September 2, 2005 order, Deputy Attorney

General Constance L. Picciano immediately alerted MCSP medical staff of the need to evaluate

plaintiff in light of his suicide threat. Declaration of Jodie A. Schwab, ¶ 2. MCSP Chief

Psychologist, Jeff White, evaluated plaintiff on September 2, 2005, determining that he was not

suicidal on that date. Id., ¶ 3. (The court observes that in the representations of the parties there

is some conflict in the position that Dr. White has allegedly taken as to whether or not plaintiff

should be transferred). On September 5, 2005,5 counsel, upon assignment to the case, contacted

MCSP Litigation Coordinator Earl Kanipe and was informed that plaintiff had been evaluated by

mental health and found not to be suicidal at present. Counsel attaches a chrono (attachment A)

from the UCC hearing on September 7, 2005 (referenced by plaintiff above), wherein a

recommendation was made for plaintiff’s transfer to SVSP “so as to address his medical needs,”

in counsel’s words. Id., ¶ 5. 

On September 7, 2005, a psychologist, Dr. K. Powell, reviewed plaintiff’s file to

re-assess his mental health needs, also determining that he was not presently suicidal, but

nevertheless placing him in the CCCMS program to be monitored and re-evaluated at least once

weekly. Id., ¶ 6. 

On September 8, 2005, defendant’s counsel reviewed plaintiff’s file at MCSP and

spoke with T. Weinhold, the medical return coordinator at MCSP, the individual responsible for

finding medical providers for medical procedures approved by the Medical Review Committee

for inmates and scheduling the procedures. Id., ¶ 7. Medical providers must be contractually

Case 2:05-cv-01701-GEB-GGH Document 19 Filed 09/20/05 Page 7 of 12
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 6

 Because plaintiff has named two defendants named Dr. B. Williams, the court must

distinguish them by full first name. 

8

approved and willing to perform a procedure. Id. On December 21, 2004, Weinhold had

scheduled and arranged transport for plaintiff for an MRI of his left knee. Id. According to what

Weinhold told defendant’s counsel, she had to cancel the appointment upon being informed by

transport that plaintiff refused the transport. Id. Weinhold told counsel that she also had

scheduled appointments with Dr. Zheng in Manteca to address plaintiff’s low back pain; Dr.

Zheng recommended an epidural steroid injection (ESI) for plaintiff’s low back pain on July 14,

2005, and plaintiff was scheduled to return for a second ESI in mid-September. Id. Plaintiff was

also referred to her after the Medical Review Committee approved his right shoulder surgery, and

has since been working to find a medical provider to perform the shoulder surgery. Id. Counsel

does not say how long Weinhold has been looking. 

Defendant’s counsel provides some relevant background information. On

September 22, 2004, plaintiff was referred to (now defendant) Dr. Bradley Williams,6 an

orthopedic surgeon at Doctor’s Hospital in Manteca. Id. Defendant Bradley Williams ordered an

MRI of plaintiff’s right shoulder; plaintiff returned to see him on October 13, 2004 for his

shoulder injury and to have his left knee examined. Id. On that date, defendant Bradley

Williams gave plaintiff a steroid injection in his knee; an MRI thereafter completed revealed a

rotator cuff tear in plaintiff’s right shoulder. Id. Defendant Bradley Williams upon reviewing the

MRI, before recommending surgery, due to plaintiff’s history of myocardial infarctions, required

plaintiff to see a cardiologist to be cleared for shoulder surgery. Id. Weinhold then informed

counsel that she then scheduled an appointment for plaintiff with a cardiologist, Dr. Baluyat, at

Doctor’s Hospital in Modesto and Manteca, who has limited availability and was unable to see

plaintiff to clear him for surgery until June 20, 2005. Id. 

Defendant Bradley Williams, thereafter, on June 29, 2005, recommended the

shoulder surgery but informed Weinhold that he would not be able to do it because, as of July 1,

Case 2:05-cv-01701-GEB-GGH Document 19 Filed 09/20/05 Page 8 of 12
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

9

2005, he would not be under contract with the state as a medical provider for inmates. Id. 

Weinhold then contacted a medical provider at Queen of the Valley Hospital in the Napa area, to

see if Dr. Schifflet, an orthopedic surgeon, would see plaintiff, but she was informed on August

15, 2005, that he would not do so. Id. 

On August 31, 2005, Weinhold contacted UC Davis Medical Center to see if they

would see plaintiff, who have since informed her that they would see plaintiff for a shoulder

consultation; however, MCSP Litigation Coordinator Earl Kanipe has been informed, according

to counsel, that UC Davis Med Center would not be able to schedule the consultation to evaluate

the shoulder until March 27, 2006. Id., §§ 7-8. 

Counsel for defendant then concedes that plaintiff “has several orthopedic health

concerns that need to be addressed,” but asserts that scheduling has proven very difficult since

plaintiff has been housed at MCSP. Id., ¶ 9. Counsel has been “informed” that SVSP has an

orthopedic doctor under contract who can see plaintiff. Id., ¶ 10. Counsel goes on to state that

she has been informed that “plaintiff’s counselor” recommended transfer because plaintiff can be

more appropriately housed at SVSP, where his medical needs, she believes, can be better

addressed. Id., ¶ 11. Counsel intends to update the court as to plaintiff’s status within five court

days, or by September 23, 2005 (five court days from the filing of the September 16, 2005

response). Id., ¶ 13. 

TRO

 The purpose in issuing a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo

pending a fuller hearing. The cases contain limited discussion of the standards for issuing a

temporary restraining order due to the fact that very few such orders can be appealed prior to the

hearing on a preliminary injunction. It is apparent, however, that requests for temporary

restraining orders which are not ex parte and without notice are governed by the same general

standards that govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v.

Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977) (Rehnquist, J.); Los Angeles Unified Sch.

Case 2:05-cv-01701-GEB-GGH Document 19 Filed 09/20/05 Page 9 of 12
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

10

Dist. v. United States Dist. Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) (Ferguson, J. dissenting);

Century Time Ltd. v. Interchron Ltd., 729 F. Supp. 366, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). In many cases the

emphasis of the court is directed to irreparable harm and the balance of hardships because the

merits of a controversy are often difficult to ascertain and adjudicate on short notice. 

Preliminary Injunction Standard

The legal principles applicable to a request for preliminary injunctive relief are

well established. “The traditional equitable criteria for granting preliminary injunctive relief are:

1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, 2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff

if the preliminary relief is not granted, 3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and 4)

advancement of the public interest (in certain cases).” Dollar Rent A Car v. Travelers Indem.

Co., 774 F.2d 1371, 1374 (9th Cir. 1985). The criteria are traditionally treated as alternative

tests. “Alternatively, a court may issue a preliminary injunction if the moving party demonstrates

‘either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or

that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor.’” Martin

v. International Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting William Inglis &

Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 526 F.2d 86, 88 (9th Cir. 1975)). The Ninth

Circuit has reiterated that under either formulation of the principles, if the probability of success

on the merits is low, preliminary injunctive relief should be denied:

Martin explicitly teaches that “[u]nder this last part of the

alternative test, even if the balance of hardships tips decidedly in

favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible

minimum that there is a fair chance of success on the merits.”

Johnson v. California State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting

Martin, 740 F.2d at 675).

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any

preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the

harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to

Case 2:05-cv-01701-GEB-GGH Document 19 Filed 09/20/05 Page 10 of 12
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

11

correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

Discussion

In this case, on this showing, it appears that the balance of hardships tip decidedly

in plaintiff’s favor. Defendant Woodford does not dispute that plaintiff is suffering great pain for

his three injuries nor does she contend that, other than a single epidural injection for his shoulder

injury, that he has really received treatment for his shoulder pain. In fact, the reference to the

still-to-be-administered second epidural injection for his low back pain to be done in midSeptember indicates that it has not yet occurred and September’s end approaches rapidly. In

addition, defendant’s counsel references an MRI in September, 2004 that “revealed” a rotator

cuff tear in plaintiff’s right shoulder, but even in the limited medical records to which this court

has had any access, an MRI two years earlier (September, 2002) had clearly identified a rotator

cuff tear in plaintiff’s right shoulder. See plaintiff’s Exhibits. 

Although the court cannot fully evaluate the likelihood of plaintiff’s prevailing on

the merits of this action at least as to his claims of inadequate medical care for a serious medical

condition in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment, if not on his First Amendment

claims of retaliation, plaintiff’s showing demonstrates that his claims are colorable and are

enough, in this instance, to warrant a TRO issued upon defendant Woodford, prohibiting

plaintiff’s transfer by MCSP to SVSP or any other prison facility without, at the least,

declarations submitted which assure that SVSP has the capacity to address plaintiff’s evidently

long-neglected medical needs and that the orthopedic medical care provider apparently located

there is both qualified to treat plaintiff’s conditions and will do so forthwith. Plaintiff’s

allegation that he has been subjected to a pattern of being shuffled from one institution to the

next in order for the state to avoid costly medical procedures does not appear to be without any

foundation and has yet to be refuted by defendants at this very preliminary stage. While the court

cannot make any finding at this point as to whether CDC officials have acted in good or bad faith

in providing, or seeking to provide, medical care for plaintiff, even assuming the good faith of

Case 2:05-cv-01701-GEB-GGH Document 19 Filed 09/20/05 Page 11 of 12
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

12

prison officials, there comes a point when, to paraphrase a court-related aphorism, medical care

delayed is medical care denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that a temporary restraining order issue

prohibiting plaintiff’s transfer from Mule Creek State Prison to Salinas Valley State Prison, or

any other state prison facility, pending adjudication of a motion for preliminary injunction.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Defendant

Woodford must file any objections by no later than September 23, 2005. 

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The court will consider plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction by no

later than October 24, 2005;

2. Plaintiff must file a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin his

transfer, and/or to receive specific medical care forthwith, as well as any further supporting

documentation, in the form of medical records and/or affidavits, etc., by October 7, 2005; and

3. Defendants’ response is due by no later than October 14, 2005.

DATED: 9/20/05 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

cons1701.ofr

Case 2:05-cv-01701-GEB-GGH Document 19 Filed 09/20/05 Page 12 of 12