(PC) Reyes v. Flores

District Court, E.D. California·Decided September 24, 2019·No. 1:16-cv-00586·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ABEL P. REYES, No. 1:16-cv-00586-DAD-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER 14 M. FLORES, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On August 13, 2019, the court conducted a final pretrial conference. Plaintiff Abel Reyes 18 (“plaintiff”) appeared telephonically and pro se. Deputy Attorney General Matthew Roman 19 appeared telephonically as counsel for defendant M. Flores, LVN (“defendant”). Having 20 considered the plaintiff’s objections, the court issues this final pretrial order. 21 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought 22 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendant knowingly denied him 23 constitutionally adequate medical treatment and was deliberately indifferent to his serious 24 medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 25 I. JURISDICTION/VENUE 26 Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343. Jurisdiction is not contested. 27 Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Venue is not contested. 28 ///// 1 II. JURY 2 Both parties have demanded a jury trial. The jury will consist of seven jurors.1 3 III. UNDISPUTED FACTS 4 1. In January 2014, plaintiff was incarcerated at California State Prison-Corcoran 5 (“CSP-Corcoran”). 6 2. Following a history of treatment for various urinary symptoms, the plaintiff was 7 admitted into the Delano Regional Medical Center for transurethral resection of the prostate 8 (“TURP”) surgery on January 21, 2014. 9 3. Plaintiff was discharged and returned to CSP-Corcoran on January 23, 2014. 10 4. On January 26, 2014, at approximately 7:00 a.m., plaintiff was pushed in his 11 wheelchair to the C window of the 3-B Clinic to obtain his morning medications. Plaintiff told 12 defendant that he was in severe pain and that he had a medical emergency. Defendant stated that 13 it was not a medical emergency and told plaintiff to submit a health care services request form to 14 be seen. 15 5. At approximately 11:30 a.m., plaintiff returned to the 3-B Clinic where he was 16 seen by defendant. Plaintiff told defendant of his continuing pain, and that he was unable to 17 urinate, had thick blood clots come out of his penis, and that he had just had surgery and needed 18 medical attention. Defendant assessed plaintiff and concluded that he did not need immediate 19 medical attention. 20 6. At approximately 3:45 p.m., plaintiff again returned to the 3-B Clinic. At that 21 time, another nurse examined plaintiff and again concluded that he did not require emergency 22 treatment. 23 7. Later that evening, plaintiff was examined in the Acute Care Hospital at CSP- 24 Corcoran by Dr. Julian Kim.

25 1 Plaintiff objects to the proposed number of jurors and proposes that the jury consist of eight instead of seven jurors without reason. (Doc. No. 88 at 1.) Local Rule 162.2 of this court states 26 that a civil trial shall consist of no fewer than six and no more than twelve members. See also 27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 48. This trial is estimated to be not more than four court days in length. The court is well within its discretion in determining that a jury of seven will be sufficient and plaintiff’s 28 objection to that number is rejected. 1 8. Thereafter, plaintiff was sent to the Mercy Hospital Emergency Room, where he 2 was examined by Dr. Noor Jaber. Plaintiff had a catheter inserted and was admitted to the 3 hospital. Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital on January 29, 2014. 4 IV. DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES2 5 1. Whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff’s medical needs. 6 2. Whether the plaintiff suffered any medical complications as a result of the alleged 7 delay in providing him medical care. 8 V. DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES/MOTIONS IN LIMINE 9 The parties have not yet filed motions in limine. The court does not encourage the filing 10 of motions in limine unless they are addressed to issues that can realistically be resolved by the 11 court prior to trial and without reference to the other evidence which will be introduced by the 12 parties at trial. The parties anticipate filing the motions in limine below. Any motions in limine 13 counsel elects to file shall be filed no later than 21 days before trial. Opposition shall be filed no 14 later than 14 days before trial and any replies shall be filed no later than 10 days before trial. 15 Upon receipt of any opposition briefs, the court will notify the parties if it will hear argument on 16 any motions in limine prior to the first day of trial. 17 Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine 18 1. Motion in limine to bar defendant from presenting evidence of or making reference 19 to plaintiff’s criminal history, the criminal history of plaintiff’s witnesses, plaintiff’s history of 20 administrative appeals and litigation unrelated to this instant lawsuit, and any documents not 21 previously disclosed to plaintiff. 22 2. Motion in limine to bar testimony of defendant’s expert witnesses if it is revealed 23 through deposition that their opinions are based in whole or in part on materials that should have 24 been produced during discovery and which were withheld from plaintiff. 25 3. Plaintiff anticipates objecting to defendant’s proposed trial exhibits. 26

27 2 Plaintiff has objected to the court’s formulation of the disputed factual issues in this case. (Doc. No. 88 at 2.) However, plaintiff’s proposed version of disputed factual issues in this case 28 merely recounts all of the facts of this case from plaintiff’s perspective. (Id. at 2–4.) 1 Defendant’s Motions in Limine 2 1. Defendant states that he objects to the introduction of testimony by plaintiff 3 including but not limited to, type of treatment, rationale for treatment, and appropriateness of 4 treatment, and causation of subsequent medical conditions. 5 VI. SPECIAL FACTUAL INFORMATION 6 Special factual information pursuant to Local Rule 281(b)(6) is not applicable to this 7 action. 8 VII. RELIEF SOUGHT 9 Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $300,000.00 and punitive 10 damages in the amount of $100,000.00. 11 VIII. POINTS OF LAW 12 The claims and defenses in this case arise under federal law. All of plaintiff’s claims are 13 brought against defendant M. Flores. 14 1. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a cause of action for deliberate 15 indifference to a prisoner’s right to medical care pursuant to the Eighth Amendment. 16 2. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof for an award of punitive damages. 17 Trial briefs addressing the points of law implicated by these remaining claims shall be 18 filed with this court no later than 7 days before trial in accordance with Local Rule 285. 19 ANY CAUSES OF ACTION OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NOT EXPLICITLY 20 ASSERTED IN THE PRETRIAL ORDER UNDER POINTS OF LAW AT THE TIME IT 21 BECOMES FINAL ARE DISMISSED AND DEEMED WAIVED. 22 IX. ABANDONED ISSUES 23 None. 24 X. WITNESSES 25 Plaintiff’s witnesses shall be those listed in Attachment A. Defendant’s witnesses shall 26 be those listed in Attachment B. Each party may call any witnesses designated by the other. 27 A.

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

(PC) Reyes v. Flores, (E.D. Cal. 2019).

(PC) Reyes v. Flores ((PC) Reyes v. Flores) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Frank Gonzalez v. William E. Kangas
814 F.2d 1411 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)