(PC) Hisle v. Conanon ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DENNIS CURTIS HISLE, No. 1:17-cv-01400-NONE-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MARLYN CONANON and MUSHTAQ AHMED, (Doc. Nos. 122, 127, 128, 138, 164, 166) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Dennis Curtis Hisle is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Pending before the court are two sets of cross-motions for summary judgment and two 21 findings and recommendations addressing those cross-motions. On June 16, 2021, the assigned 22 magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motion for 23 summary judgment against defendant Ahmed be denied and that defendant Ahmed’s motion for 24 summary judgment against plaintiff be granted. (Doc. No. 164.) On July 27, 2021, the 25 magistrate judge issued further findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s 26 motion for summary judgment against defendant Conanon be denied and defendant Conanon’s 27 motion for summary judgment in her favor be granted. (Doc. No. 166.) Plaintiff filed timely 28 ///// 1 objections to both findings and recommendations. (Doc. Nos. 165, 167.) Defendant Conanon 2 filed a response. (Doc. No. 168.) 3 The court begins with the pending findings and recommendations recommending that 4 summary judgment be granted in favor of defendant Ahmed. Plaintiff objects on the grounds that 5 defendant Ahmed’s handwritten note stating that plaintiff was “stable” contradicts Dr. Wachtel’s 6 expert opinion, which explained plaintiff was “hematocrit stable.” The magistrate judge 7 addressed this argument in the findings and recommendations and concluded that plaintiff’s lay 8 interpretation of defendant Ahmed’s handwritten note does not establish a genuine dispute of 9 material fact precluding summary judgment. (Doc. No. 164 at 9 n.8.) The court interprets the 10 findings and recommendations in this regard as relying on the requirement set forth in Federal 11 Rule of Evidence 701(c) that plaintiff’s lay testimony not be “based on . . . specialized knowledge 12 within the scope of [Federal] Rule [of Evidence] 702.” In this respect the pending findings and 13 recommendations are correct: decoding the difference between “stable” and “hematocrit stable” 14 requires specialized knowledge and cannot be the subject of lay testimony. Another judge of this 15 court encountered a similar issue, stating: 16 Defendants’ twelfth motion in limine seeks to preclude Plaintiff from offering opinion testimony concerning his medical records or 17 medical condition, pursuant to Rules 701 and 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that he 18 should be permitted to offer such evidence, because he has personal knowledge of the facts of his medical records and conditions, and he 19 will be prejudiced because the Court denied him an expert witness. 20 . . . As for Plaintiff’s interpretation of x-ray films or other medical records, Plaintiff does not have the scientific, 21 technical, or other specialized knowledge to give his opinions. Therefore, testimony by Plaintiff interpreting his medical records 22 shall be precluded. 23 Calloway v. Hayward, No. 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA (PC), 2017 WL 363000, at *5–6 (E.D. Cal. 24 Jan. 24, 2017); see also Exmundo v. Scribner, No. 1:06-cv-00205-AWI-DLB, 2014 WL 4249133, 25 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2014) (“As to Plaintiff’s medical conditions, he may not testify as to 26 any medical matter which requires scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge, which 27 generally includes any ultimate diagnosis . . . and/or interpretation of . . . medical records.” (citing 28 Fed. R. Evid. 702)). 1 With respect to the findings and recommendations recommending that summary 2 | judgement be granted in favor of defendant Conanon (Doc. No. 166), most of plaintiff's 3 | objections relate to those aspects of plaintiffs claim against the defendant which were dismissed 4 | as unexhausted. (See Doc. Nos. 136 & 167.) Plaintiff's remaining objections show no flaws in 5 | the magistrate judge’s reasoning. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 7 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 8 | magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 9 | analysis. 10 Accordingly, 11 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 16, 2021 and July 27, 2021 (Doc. 12 Nos. 164 & 166) are adopted in full; 13 2. Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 122 & 128) are denied; 14 3. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 127 & 138) are granted; and 15 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants, to assign a 16 district judge for purposes of closure, and to close this case. 17 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a - Dated: _ October 25, 2021 Yel A Yara 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28