Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00978/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00978-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAMONT DIVINE SMITH, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARNOLD, et al.,

Defendants.

2:07-cv-0978-LDG

ORDER

Defendants Arnold and Schwartz have filed a motion for reconsideration of this court’s

denial of their motion to dismiss (#40, opposition #42). The court finds that because summary

judgment is not the appropriate method in which to resolve factual disputes regarding the

exhaustion of plaintiff’s claims, the motion for reconsideration has merit. 

As indicated in the court’s prior order, the court is presented with two issues in its

exhaustion inquiry: (1) whether contents of grievances requesting transfer satisfy a complaint by

Smith of a denial of the mental health treatment, and (2) whether Smith was not aware of his

designation for mental health treatment, and, therefore, could not have filed a specific grievance to

that effect. Before determining whether to conduct a Ritza hearing, the court will direct the parties

to further address these issues. Accordingly,

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that defendants’ motion for reconsideration (#40) is

GRANTED to the following extent: In order to enable the court to determine whether a Ritza 

hearing should be conducted, defendants shall file within sixty (60) days of the date of the filing of

this order, a brief addressing the two issues identified above; plaintiff Smith shall have 60 days

Case 2:07-cv-00978-LDG Document 43 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 2
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

from the filing of defendants’ brief in which to file a response; and defendants shall have 30 days

from the date of the filing of the response to file a reply.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that plaintiff Smith’s motions for extensions of time

(#41 and #34) are DENIED as moot because the filings pertaining to them have been filed and

considered by the court.

DATED this _____ day of March, 2010.

______________________________

Lloyd D. George

United States District Judge

2

Case 2:07-cv-00978-LDG Document 43 Filed 03/30/10 Page 2 of 2