Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00929/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00929-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD WILLIAM WARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. BATRA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00929-NODJ-SKO (PC) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST CONCERNING LIEN

(Doc. 32)

Plaintiff Ronald William Ward is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

On December 6, 2023, this Court vacated its Findings and Recommendations To Dismiss 

For A Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Could Be Granted and directed the Clerk of 

the Court to file the amended complaint. (Doc. 30.) Plaintiff’s third amended complaint was filed 

that same day. (Doc. 31.) 

On February 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Request For Approval To Notify 

Defendants Of A Lien Being Placed Against The Hospital’s Bond.” (Doc. 32.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court permitting Plaintiff to notify certain defendants of 

a $264,000,000 lien against them, arising from allegations of a lack of medical care and 

Case 1:21-cv-00929-KES-SKO Document 33 Filed 02/02/24 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

treatment. (Doc. 32 at 2.) Plaintiff cites to various provisions of the California Civil Code in 

support of his request. (Id. at 2-3.) 

Plaintiff’s request will be denied. First, Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is pending 

screening as he was advised in this Court’s December 6, 2023, order. (See Doc. 30 at 2:11-12 

[“The Court will screen Plaintiff’s third amended complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a) 

in due course”].)1 Screening determines whether a plaintiff has plausibly alleged cognizable 

federal constitutional claims against the named defendants.2 Here, because Plaintiff’s third 

amended complaint has not yet been screened, no such determination has been made and there is 

no operative complaint in this case. Second, no defendant has been served with process or 

appeared in this action. Plaintiff is advised that until this Court has screened his third amended 

complaint and found that cognizable federal constitutional claims have been asserted, any request 

by Plaintiff is premature. Moreover, the California statutory authority cited by Plaintiff involves 

California state law and is not applicable to this action. See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Code § 3045.1 

(authorizing liens by hospitals against recoveries from third party tortfeasors), § 3345 (applicable 

to actions seeking redress for unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of 

compensation), § 3287 (permitting interest on damages following judgment). 

In sum, this case is in the very preliminary stages. Even if the Court determines Plaintiff 

has stated cognizable claims in the third amended complaint, an order such as the one sought by 

Plaintiff would be inappropriate and premature. Plaintiff shall refrain from filing requests or 

motions in this action until the Court has issued a screening order on Plaintiff’s third amended 

complaint. 

//

//

1 This Court is one of the busiest district courts in the nation. The undersigned and all the judges in this 

district carry heavy caseloads in all manner of cases. Delays are inevitable and unavoidable.

2 Plaintiff’s original complaint, first amended complaint, and second amended complaint asserted only 

state law causes of action. (See Docs. 1, 11, 25.) As Plaintiff has been previously advised, this Court does 

not have jurisdiction to hear a case involving only state law claims in a section 1983 action. (See Doc. 12 

at 5-6 [First Screening Order issued 11/22/22] & Doc. 27 at 5-8 {Findings and Recommendations issued 

11/14/23].) A plaintiff must assert cognizable federal claims to proceed. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Case 1:21-cv-00929-KES-SKO Document 33 Filed 02/02/24 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Request For 

Approval To Notify Defendants Of A Lien Being Placed Against The Hospital’s Bond” (Doc. 32) 

is DENIED. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint will be screened in due course and no further 

filings will be entertained by the Court prior to screening. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00929-KES-SKO Document 33 Filed 02/02/24 Page 3 of 3