Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00257/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00257-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christine Donaldson
Plaintiff
Graves
Defendant
Isaac
Defendant
Kern County
Defendant
Perkins
Defendant
Romero
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTINE DONALDSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

KERN COUNTY, OFFICER BRENDA 

GRAVES, OFFICER PHILLIP ROMERO, 

OFFICER MISTY ISAAC, OFFICER 

FRANCES PERKINS, and DOE 1-10, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

1:14-cv-00257-AWI-JLT

ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL 

BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING 

ON MOTION TO AMEND

(Doc. 51)

Plaintiff Christine Donaldson brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged 

illegal strip search, retaliation, and denial of medical care against Defendants Kern County, 

Officer Brenda Graves, Officer Phillip Romero, Officer Misty Isaac, Officer Frances Perkins, 

and Doe 1-10. Doc. 21. On April 22, 2015, Donaldson filed a Motion to Modify the Scheduling 

Order for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. Doc. 40. The proposed Second 

Amended Complaint adds defendants Kathe Lundgren and Doe Nurse 1 as well as allegations 

Case 1:14-cv-00257-DAD-JLT Document 52 Filed 08/14/15 Page 1 of 3
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

related to these two defendants. Doc. 41-1. On May 22, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued an 

order denying leave to amend. Doc. 48. In the instant motion, Donaldson seeks reconsideration 

of the Magistrate Judge’s May 22, 2015 order. Doc. 51. To date Defendants have not filed an 

opposition.

On March 25, 2015, the parties conducted a deposition of Kathe Lundgren. In Exhibit 3 

to this deposition, pages Bates stamped KC 66-67 contain the paragraphs:

“Lundgren said she wrote a referral for Donaldson to see an 

Ophthalmologist at a later time, but there was no immediate need to send 

Donaldson to Kern Medical Center. Lundgren explained to Donaldson that she 

would be unable to see an eye specialist at that time because it was Saturday and 

there was none working. Lundgren said Donaldson only had irritated eye and was 

responding well to eye irrigation.

Lundgren said she also told Donaldson that the emergency room doctor 

would not be able to provide treatment, beyond what she was receiving at the 

Lerdo Pre-Trial Infirmary.

I told Lundgren about Donaldson’s allegations that she (Lundgren) 

determined she needed to go to Kern Medical Center, but a detentions deputy 

refused to allow her to go and receive treatment. I asked Lundgren if this 

occurred and if she ever told Donaldson to call an attorney. Lundgren said this 

did not happen and she did not tell Donaldson to call an attorney.”

Lundgren Depo., Exh. 3. The Court now orders Donaldson to clarify when this document 

was turned over to her and her attorneys, and to clarify if it was part of the discovery turned over 

on November 11, 2014. The Court also invites Donaldson to file additional briefing responding 

to how the pages Bates stamped KC 66-67 affect her motion for reconsideration, in light of her

assertion that “there was no information prior to March 25, 2015 that Ms. Lundgren had herself 

denied, delayed or interfered with Ms. Lundgren’s medical treatment as required by case law. 

Once Ms. Lundgren testified that it was she herself who refused to send Ms. Donaldson for an 

immediate consultation with an ophthalmologist, plaintiff promptly sought to include a claim 

against her shortly thereafter.” Doc. 51, 8:6-11.

Case 1:14-cv-00257-DAD-JLT Document 52 Filed 08/14/15 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff must submit ADDITIONAL BRIEFING on the matters described above within 

14 days; and

(2) Defendants can respond to this and file an OPPOSITION within 7 days after Plaintiff 

files the aforementioned additional briefing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00257-DAD-JLT Document 52 Filed 08/14/15 Page 3 of 3