Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Howell v. Tran, 15-cv-05377-SI. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20180301k70 Visitors: 15
Filed: Feb. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 28, 2018
Summary: ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 69 SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . On February 26, 2018, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and entered judgment. Those documents crossed in the mail with plaintiff's motion for the court to review the medical records "with extreme caution." Docket No. 69. The court has reviewed the materials plaintiff submitted with his motion; all of the medical records therein were included with the packet of documents filed under seal at Docket No. 64-3, and (
More

ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 69

On February 26, 2018, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and entered judgment. Those documents crossed in the mail with plaintiff's motion for the court to review the medical records "with extreme caution." Docket No. 69. The court has reviewed the materials plaintiff submitted with his motion; all of the medical records therein were included with the packet of documents filed under seal at Docket No. 64-3, and (other than Howell's declaration) all of the declarations were included with defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court has considered the evidence and argument in plaintiff's motion to review the medical records with extreme caution, and concludes that the evidence and argument do not require a change in the analysis in the order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. A few of his points warrant comment, however. First, plaintiff's assertion that the breakfast incident that both he and defendant Tran identified as occurring on September 14th may actually have occurred on September 20th does not show a triable issue of fact because the particular date on which the event occurred is immaterial. Second, the fact that the September 2nd Crisis SOAP notes mention plaintiff putting his feces out of his cell, rather than smearing feces around his cell, does not show a triable issue because both versions would result in a need to clean feces from somewhere they should not be. Third, the self-reported head injury does not show a triable issue because, as explained in the order granting summary judgment, the claim fails due to the fact that Howell could not have been able to see who allegedly hit him. For these reasons, plaintiff's motion for the court to review the medical records is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Docket No. 69. The motion is granted in that the court has reviewed the exhibits attached to the motion and has considered plaintiff's additional arguments in his motion, but denied in all other respects.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer