Stallings v. Ferrara

Summary

This Eastern District of California document addresses Plaintiff Pablo Stallings’s request for judicial notice, State Defendants’ motion to strike, and State Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court denies the request for judicial notice, grants in part and denies in part the motion to strike, and recommends granting or denying the State Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claims concerning delayed transfer to a state hospital and inadequate medical care.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment should be granted to the State Defendants because Plaintiff presented no admissible evidence that either supervisory official personally participated in the delay of his transfer and admission to Napa State Hospital or had a sufficient causal connection to the alleged constitutional violation.
2. Summary judgment should be granted to the State Defendants because Plaintiff presented no admissible evidence that either official personally participated in Plaintiff's medical care at the county jail or had a sufficient causal connection to the alleged constitutional violation.
3. The Court denied Plaintiff's request for judicial notice of the adjudicative facts and evidence in In re Chunn because a court may notice the existence and authenticity of another court's decision but may not judicially notice disputed underlying facts and evidence for their truth.
4. The Court granted the motion to strike Plaintiff's counsel's declaration because counsel failed to establish personal knowledge and the declaration did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(4); the Court denied the motion to strike insofar as it challenged state court orders that were independently subject to judicial notice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff presented sufficient admissible evidence of the personal participation or causal connection of supervisory state hospital officials in the delay of his transfer and admission to Napa State Hospital.
2. Whether Plaintiff presented sufficient admissible evidence that the supervisory state hospital officials personally participated in, or caused, the alleged failure to provide adequate medical care while he awaited placement.
3. Whether Plaintiff's request for judicial notice of the adjudicative facts and evidence in another case was proper.
4. Whether Plaintiff's counsel's declaration was admissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(4).

Disposition

other