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.

Elijah Paschelke v. William Kolender

May 19, 2011

ELIJAH PASCHELKE,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
WILLIAM KOLENDER, SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF; JOHN DOE, SAN DIEGO COUNTY PSYCHIATRIC UNIT OFFICER DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge United States District Court

BOP #05698-298,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY FED.R.CIV.P.56 JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO [ECF No. 45]

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Elijah Paschelke ("Plaintiff"), a federal prisoner currently housed at the Federal Correctional Institution located in Adelanto, California, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the Court is Defendants' William Kolender and County of San Diego's Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 56 [ECF No. 45].*fn1

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendants Former San Diego County Sheriff William Kolender and County of San Diego are moving for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P.

56. On February 28, 2011, the Court advised Plaintiff of his rights and obligations to oppose Defendants' Motion pursuant to Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988) and Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).*fn2 Plaintiff later sought, and received, an extension of time to file an Opposition to Defendants' Motion. Plaintiff filed his Opposition [ECF No. 50] to which Defendants have filed their Reply [ECF No. 51].

Having now exercised its discretion to consider the matter as submitted on the papers without oral argument pursuant to S.D. CAL. CIVLR 7.1.d.1, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 56 for the reasons set forth in detail below.

III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS*fn3

Plaintiff was first held at the San Diego Central Detention Facility ("SDCDF") on or about September 7, 2007. (See FAC at 9.) Soon after Plaintiff's arrival, he was issued a "chrono" for a walking cane, as well a "chrono" to be housed in a lower tier and lower bunk. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that at the time he was housed at SDCDF he was suffering from back injuries related to a car accident including pain from a "pinched sciatic nerve." (Id.) Medical staff prescribed medication to be taken twice daily for the pain, along with psychiatric medication. (Id.) However, after Plaintiff left the medical facility and returned to his housing unit, Defendant John Doe*fn4 "confiscated the walking cane" and informed Plaintiff that "institutional policy does not allow inmates to have canes" while housed in the psychiatric unit. (Id. at 9-10.) This Defendant also failed to provide Plaintiff with a lower bunk and Plaintiff was also later moved to an upper tier. (Id. at 10.)

Plaintiff submitted an "inmate request" for the return of his cane but was informed that he could not have a cane until he moved to another unit. (Id.) Plaintiff continued to ask the "Unit Officer" several times to move to another unit so he could have his cane back. (Id.) On October 7, 2007, Plaintiff was "walking up a flight of stairs in order to get to his holding cell and suddenly felt a sharp stabing [sic] pain." (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff's back "gave out" which caused him to fall down a flight of stairs. (Id.) Plaintiff was taken by ambulance to the hospital where an MRI and C.T. scans were performed. (Id.). These tests "revealed that [Plaintiff] suffered a fractured neck and compounded back injuries" from the fall. (Id.)

After Plaintiff's return from the hospital, he was given his walking cane back and "moved to the hospital unit of SDCDF on a lower tier, and lower bunk, as initially prescribed" by medical staff. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff was then transferred to the George Bailey Detention Facility "where follow-up treatments for neck and back injuries were performed." (Id.)

IV. DEFENDANTS'MOTION FOR ...


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.