(PC)Hagan v. Recarey ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN HAGAN, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-0562 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. ) PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE ) RELIEF AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 14 RAUL RECAREY, et al., ) MOTION TO DISMISS ) 15 Defendants. ) (Docs. 29-2, 43, and 52) ) 16 17 Kevin Hagan seeks to hold the defendants, who are physicians at Valley State Prison, liable for 18 violations of federal and state law related to the medical care he has received. (See generally Doc. 29.) 19 Plaintiff requests a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, seeking injunctive relief in 20 the form of an order directs Plaintiff receive a recommended back surgery and adequate pain 21 management. (Doc. 29-2.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to show he was entitled to 22 injunctive relief at this time, and recommended the request be denied. (Doc. 52 at 26-27.) 23 Defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the 24 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 43.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff stated cognizable 25 claims for deliberate indifference against Drs. Sandu, Eskander, Longia, Son, and Mevi. (Doc. 52 at 26 12-20.) The magistrate judge found the “allegations against Defendants plausibly give rise to the 27 inference that the failure to recommend, request, approve or order a surgery to address Plaintiff’s back 28 condition was medically unacceptable under the circumstances.” (Id. at 17.) The magistrate judge also 1 || found Plaintiff “sufficient alleges Dr. Son, Dr. Longia, and Dr. Mevi’s overall delay in prescribing 2 || Plaintiff with stronger medication beyond over-the-counter medications and topical creams to addres: 3 || his pain was medically unacceptable;” and that “Dr. Eskander’s failure to prescribe additional 4 || medication, despite Plaintiff's reports of pain and medical history, was medically unacceptable.” (Jd. 5 || 19-20.) In addition, the magistrate judge determined Plaintiff stated cognizable claims for medical 6 || negligence, and the claims were not barred because Plaintiff made a government claim that contained 7 || sufficient information for the CDCR to have notice of the factual allegations and conduct an 8 investigation. Ud. at 23-26.) Finally, although Defendants assert they are entitled qualified immunit: 9 || the magistrate judge found “it is unclear at this early stage whether the decisions made by Defendant: 10 || were medically acceptable in light of Plaintiff's allegations.” (/d. at 22.) Therefore, the magistrate 11 || judge recommended Defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied. (/d.) 12 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on all parties and notified them that any 13 || objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 52 at 27.) The Court advised the parties that the “failure t 14 || file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (d., citing 15 || Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants filed 16 || objections, and the time to do so has passed. 17 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Havi 18 || carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported 19 || by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 20 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated July 31, 2024 (Doc. 52) are ADOPTED. 21 2. Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief (Doc. 29-2) is DENIED. 22 3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 43) is DENIED. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: _ September 10, 2024 ( LAW pA L. wan 26 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28