Rudas

(PC) Miner v. Rudas

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 12, 20202:17-cv-01896California5,929 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GREGORY MINER, No. 2:17-cv-1896-MCE-EFB P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS W. DAVID SMILEY, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants move for summary judgment. ECF No. 29. For the reasons that follow, the motion must be granted. I. The Complaint Following screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (ECF No. 8), two claims remain in this action: (1) for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, against Rudas, a doctor at Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”), and (2) for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, against Vaughn, also a doctor at MCSP. ECF No. 1 at 5-7. Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from rheumatoid arthritis, for which he took a “biologic,” immune-suppressing medication. Id. at 5. On September 29, 2016, he was seen by defendant…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.