Cal.App.3d 1174, 1184, 214 Cal.Rptr. 746 (1985) (“[Questions about jail personnel’s actual or constructive knowledge of a prisoner’s need for immediate medical care as well as the reasonableness of actions taken to meet this need are factual questions.”) (emphasis added); Johnson v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 143 Cal.App.3d 298, 317, 191 Cal.Rptr. 704 (1983) (“[T]he questions of Sheriffs’ actual or constructive knowledge of Decedent’s need for immediate care, and of Sheriffs’ reasonable action to summon or not to summon such care, are questions of fact to be determined at trial.”). The objective knowledge standard under the state law claim therefore reaches conduct that Plaintiffs’ federal claim does not. See Lucas v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.App.4th 277, 288, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 655 (1996) (<HOLDING>). The Court finds, viewing the evidence in the
holding that disagreement with a doctors judgment does not support a claim of deliberate indifference holding that res judicata did not apply where a trial courts order was not a final judgment holding that a federal courts dismissal of state claims without prejudice is not res judicata as to adjudication in either state or federal courts holding that under federal law the dismissal of a claim as timebarred is adjudication of merits for purposes of res judicata holding federal courts dismissal of deliberate indifference claim did not constitute res judicata for plaintiffs section 8456 claim in part because of differing knowledge requirements