Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01299/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01299-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

RAHN G. THOMPSON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:07-cv-01299-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER FOR CLARIFICATION OF MOTION

TO DISMISS

(Doc. 52.)

DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS TO

RESPOND: TEN CALENDAR DAYS

I. BACKGROUND 

Rahn G. Thompson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

commencing this action on September 5, 2007. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds with the

Second Amended Complaint filed on November 10, 2009, against defendant Tucker for

subjecting Plaintiff to adverse conditions of confinement; against defendants Tucker, Green, Lee,

Rincon, Hernandez, Deathridge, and Huckabay for failing to protect Plaintiff; against defendants

Tucker, Green, and Huckabay for retaliating against Plaintiff; and against defendants Tucker,

Thompson, and Melendez for using excessive force against Plaintiff. (Doc. 25.) 1

On June 8, 2011, the Court dismissed all other claims and defendants from this action, based on Plaintiff's 1

failure to state a claim. (Doc. 37.)

1

Case 1:07-cv-01299-LJO-GSA Document 86 Filed 10/31/12 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

On September 27, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies and failure to state a claim for retaliation. (Docs. 52-58.) On November

21, 2011, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. 61.) On December 6, 2011,

Defendants filed a reply. (Doc. 66.) 

II. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Upon review of Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court finds inconsistencies that

require clarification by Defendants.

First, it is not clear whether defense counsel represents defendant Hernandez at this stage

of the proceedings. There are nine defendants in this case, Deathridge, Greene, Melendez,

Hernandez, Huckabay, Lee, Rincon, Thompson, and Tucker. The front page and the signature

page of the motion to dismiss indicate that defense counsel represents all of the defendants

except defendant Hernandez. (Motion, Doc. 52 at 1, 17.) However, Defendants make arguments

on behalf of defendant Hernandez in the motion to dismiss. (Id. at 11-12, 17.) Defense counsel

must clarify whether he represents defendant Hernandez and whether all nine of the defendants in

this action are making an appearance via the motion to dismiss.

Second, Defendants refer to the Declarations of Duran and Jones, which are not on the

Court’s record, (Id. at 9:12-13; 11 ¶¶B, C, E), and conversely, Defendants do not refer to the

Declarations of T. Campbell and J. Morgan, which are on the Court’s record, (Docs. 52-2, 56). 

Defendants must clarify these discrepancies.

Third, Defendants refer to Exhibits 1 through 22 in the motion to dismiss. However,

Exhibit 16 does not appear on the Court’s record. Defendants must either submit Exhibit 16 to

the Court or indicate their intention to proceed without Exhibit 16 on the record.

Fourth, D. Foston states that Plaintiff “submitted six appeals,” but then only five appeals

are listed. (Foston Decl., Doc. 54 at ¶3) (emphasis added). Defendants must clarify this

inconsistency.

Finally, J. Morgan states that Plaintiff “submitted nine appeals,” but then ten appeals are

listed. (Morgan Decl., Doc. 56 at ¶5) (emphasis added). Defendants must clarify this

inconsistency.

2

Case 1:07-cv-01299-LJO-GSA Document 86 Filed 10/31/12 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

Defendants shall be granted ten calendar days from the date of service of this order in

which to file a response to this order, addressing and clarifying the inconsistencies in the motion

to dismiss described above. 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within ten calendar days from the date of service of this order, Defendants shall

file a response to this order, addressing and clarifying the inconsistencies in

Defendant’s motion to dismiss described in this order; and

2. Should Defendants fail to comply with this order, the motion to dismiss shall be

denied on the eleventh calendar day.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:07-cv-01299-LJO-GSA Document 86 Filed 10/31/12 Page 3 of 3