UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 6, 2011
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On July 5, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendants have filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds oral argument is necessary to reach a decision on Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction ("Motion") (ECF No. 56). Hearing on this matter is hereby set before this Court at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 3, 2011, in Courtroom 7. Not later than Thursday, October 20, 2011, the parties are to submit simultaneous supplemental briefing, not to exceed fifteen (15) pages, on the following issues:
1. The relevance of the Kaiser Consent Decree to Plaintiff's claims and to his instant Motion;
2. Whether the Sacramento County Main Jail is generally required by the Eighth Amendment or the Kaiser Consent Decree to provide inmates (short-term or long-term) with root canal therapy;
3. Whether, under the specific circumstances of Plaintiff's case, the Sacramento County Main Jail is required by the Eighth Amendment or the Kaiser Consent Decree to provide Plaintiff with root canal therapy;
4. The cause of Plaintiff's injuries (i.e., whether the use of temporary fillings, the failure to provide root canal therapy followed by permanent fillings or some other factor caused Plaintiff's injuries); and
5. Whether root canal therapy followed by permanent fillings could have saved Plaintiff's teeth at the time of initial treatment or could still save his teeth now.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.