(PC) Gallegos v. Sahota

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedOctober 16, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-02776
StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Gallegos v. Sahota ((PC) Gallegos v. Sahota) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
(PC) Gallegos v. Sahota, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENJAMIN GALLEGOS, No. 2:24-cv-2776 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SAHOTA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 8, 2024, plaintiff filed a complaint and a motion 19 for injunctive relief. (ECF Nos. 1, 3.) For the following reasons, defendants Sahota and Babbala 20 are ordered to file a response to plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. 21 In the order screening plaintiff’s complaint, this Court found that plaintiff stated a 22 potentially colorable Eighth Amendment claim for denial of adequate medical care against 23 defendants Chief Physician Sahota and Head Nurse Babbala. Plaintiff alleged that defendants 24 Sahota and Babbala discontinued plaintiff’s epidural injections and removed plaintiff’s permanent 25 chronos for a walker, knee brace, and wrist brace and temporary chrono for a back brace based on 26 a document prepared by the “doe” defendants.1 Plaintiff alleged that the document prepared by 27 1 In referring to “chronos,” plaintiff appears to refer to medical chronos. A medical chrono is a 28 medical order. See Terry v. McBride, 2009 WL 3150276, at *1 n. 1 (S.D. Cal. July 6, 2009). 1 the “doe” defendants falsely stated that plaintiff fought staff for a long period of time, plaintiff 2 was really strong and plaintiff grabbed a correctional officer and threw the correctional officer to 3 the ground, dislocating the correctional officer’s shoulder. Plaintiff alleged that defendants 4 Sahota and Babbala stated that their “dictates” were coming from corrections to remove 5 plaintiff’s chronos. Liberally construed, plaintiff’s complaint alleged that defendants Sahota and 6 Babbala knew the information they received from the “doe” defendants was false. 7 In the pending motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff seeks reinstatement of his epidural 8 injections and chronos. Attached to plaintiff’s motion is a form titled, “ADA/Effective 9 Communication Summary Patient Summary,” dated August 29, 2024. (ECF No. 3 at 14.) This 10 form indicates that as of August 29, 2024, plaintiff had permanent chronos for a walker, knee 11 brace and wrist support brace, and a temporary chrono for a back brace. (Id.) Also attached to 12 plaintiff’s pending motion is a second “ADA/Effective Communication Patient Summary” form. 13 (Id. at 15.) This second form indicates that as of September 11, 2024, plaintiff no longer had 14 permanent chronos for a walker, knee brace and wrist support brace, or a temporary chrono for a 15 back brace. (Id.) 16 This Court is concerned by plaintiff’s claim in his complaint that defendants Sahota and 17 Babbala discontinued plaintiff’s epidural injections and removed plaintiff’s permanent chronos 18 for a walker, knee brace and wrist support brace and temporary chrono for a back brace based on 19 false information and for reasons unrelated to plaintiff’s alleged serious medical needs. 20 Accordingly, defendants are ordered to file a response to plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, 21 which should also address plaintiff’s allegations that his permanent chronos for a walker, knee 22 brace and wrist support brace and temporary chrono for a back brace were removed between 23 August 29, 2024 and September 11, 2024; address whether any of these chronos have been 24 reinstated; whether plaintiff previously received epidural injections; and whether plaintiff is 25 currently receiving epidural injections and, if not, then why not. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. Defendants shall file a response to plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief discussed 28 above within twenty-one days of the date of this order; and ] 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order, a copy of plaintiff's complaint 2 | and motion for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 1, 3) on Supervising Deputy Attorney General Monica 3 || Anderson. 4 5 || Dated: October 15, 2024 6 ( haa Spe CHI SOO KIM 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 || Gall2776.ord 11 | 2 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
(PC) Gallegos v. Sahota, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-gallegos-v-sahota-caed-2024.