Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pittman v. Traquina

March 3, 2010

ELZA PITTMAN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ALVARO C. TRAQUINA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on the original complaint as against defendants Traquina, Tan, Rohrer, Mahon, Lahey, Basi, and Popson.*fn1 Pending before the court are separate unopposed motions for summary judgment (Docs. 25 and 34) filed by defendants Traquina, Tan, Rohrer, Mahon, Lahey, and Basi.

I. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition and seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. Plaintiff's factual allegations are outlined below.

Tan -- Plaintiff was seen by defendant Tan on September 14, 2005. Defendant Tan failed to perform an examination but prescribed medication to treat plaintiff's condition. Plaintiff was seen again by defendant Tan on November 13, 2007, at which time plaintiff reported on his continuing medical problem. Plaintiff states that defendant Tan did nothing except prescribe the same medication. Plaintiff also states that he was seen by defendants Tan and Basi "[f]rom January 2008 through April 2008" and that neither defendant ever performed an examination and that they continued to prescribe the same ineffective medication.

Mahon -- Plaintiff was seen by defendant Mahon on March 6, 2006, after his medical condition had worsened. Defendant Mahon failed to perform an examination but prescribed medication to treat plaintiff's worsened condition. After plaintiff's condition continued to worsen, he was seen by defendant Mahon again on September 8, 2006, at which time plaintiff stated that the current medication was not working. Again, defendant Mahon did not perform any examination but prescribed the same medication. Plaintiff was seen by defendant Mahon again on November 15, 2006. Plaintiff told defendant Mahon that the prescribed medication was ineffective. Once again, defendant Mahon did not perform any examination and prescribed the same medication.

Basi -- Plaintiff was seen by defendant Basi on February 2, 2007. Despite plaintiff telling defendant Basi that the current medication was not working, defendant Basi did not perform any examination and prescribed the same medications. After plaintiff had submitted an inmate grievance concerning his medical treatment, he was seen again by defendant Basi on April 24, 2007. Plaintiff asserts that, once again, defendant Basi did not perform any examination but merely prescribed the same medication. Plaintiff also states that he was seen by defendants Tan and Basi "[f]rom January 2008 through April 2008" and that neither defendant ever performed an examination and that they continued to prescribe the same ineffective medication.

Lahey -- On March 9, 2007, defendant Lahey informally responded to plaintiff's inmate grievance concerning his medical treatment. Plaintiff states that defendant Lahey "ignored plaintiff's request for treatment . . . and solely responded to the unrelated medication issue."

Popson -- Plaintiff was seen by defendant Popson on May 24, 2007, who did not perform any examination but prescribed the same medication.

Traquina -- Defendant Traquina prepared a second level response to plaintiff's inmate grievance on June 22, 2007. Plaintiff states that, other than ordering the same medication, "defendant Traquina failed to order an examination. . . ."

Rohrer -- Plaintiff was seen by defendant Rohrer on July 16, 2007, regarding the existing problem and a new medical condition. Defendant Rohrer performed an examination and prescribed the same medication.

II. STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists "no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Under summary judgment practice, the moving party . . . always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.