Kernan

(PC) Harris v. Kernan

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 13, 20202:17-cv-00680California569 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WAYDE HOLLIS HARRIS, No. 2:17-cv-0680 TLN KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 S. KERNAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. 19 In screening plaintiff’s pleading, the undersigned found that plaintiff may be able to 20 demonstrate that Dr. Kuersten was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs by 21 allegedly interfering with numerous recommendations of specialists concerning the diagnosis and 22 treatment of plaintiff’s chronic GI symptoms, suffered over more than four years, which remain 23 undiagnosed, by denying plaintiff’s primary care physicians’ requests based on recommendations 24 by medical specialists, as well as by suggesting physical therapy for plaintiff’s tendon of his right 25 thumb where the orthopedic specialist stated that “further nonoperative treatment would not be 26 effective.” …

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.