Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01703/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01703-0/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Louis Tamale,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 02-1703 LKK PAN 

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Avenal State Prison, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff proceeds without counsel in a civil rights action

based on events during his incarceration. (Plaintiff commenced

this action after he was released.)

The court approved service of the September 5, 2002, amended

complaint upon defendants Lambert, Wilson, Mitchell, Depner,

Summers, Tamayo, Alexander, Sisto, Fortin, Huskey, Douglas and

Davis. Defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds plaintiff

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and fails to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Case 2:02-cv-01703-LKK -PAN Document 62 Filed 07/25/05 Page 1 of 4
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

2

August 24, 2004, the court explained exhaustion is not

required because plaintiff was not incarcerated when he commenced

his action. The court construed the motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim as one for a more definite statement, 

granted it and required plaintiff to amend his pleading.

Plaintiff filed a second-amended complaint October 15, 2004. 

Defendants moved to dismiss November 24, 2004, and plaintiff

opposed December 3, 2004. 

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),

the court must accept plaintiff’s allegations as true, read the

complaint most favorably to plaintiff, give plaintiff the benefit

of every reasonable inference that appears from the pleading and

argument of the case and dismiss the complaint only if it is

clear no relief could be granted under any set of facts that

could be proved consistent with the allegations. Wheeldin v.

Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647, 658 (1963); Retail Clerks International

Association, Local 1625, AFL-CIO v. Schermerhorn, 373 U.S. 746,

754 n.6 (1963); Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73

(1984). The court may consider documents attached to the

complaint in evaluating a motion to dismiss. Parks School of

Business, Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995).

Defendants argue “the Department of Corrections and Avenal

State Prison” are not persons under the civil rights statute. 

Defendants are correct, but the fact does not support an argument

in favor of dismissing plaintiff’s claims against them as

individuals. 

Case 2:02-cv-01703-LKK -PAN Document 62 Filed 07/25/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Defendants argue plaintiff did not exhaust his

administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). As noted in

the court’s prior order, plaintiff is not required to comply with

§ 1997e(a) because he was not a prisoner when he filed this suit. 

Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2000) (only persons who

are detained as result of being accused, convicted or sentenced

for a criminal offense are “prisoners” within the meaning of 42

U.S.C. section 1997e(a)); see also Greig v. Goord, 169 F.3d 165,

167 (2d Cir. 1999); Doe v. Washington County, 150 F.3d 920, 924

(8th Cir. 1998); Kerr v. Puckett, 138 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir.

1998). 

Defendants argue the complaint should be dismissed because

it contains only “conclusory allegations,” citing Ivey v. Board

of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Plaintiff’s

pleading is sufficient to provide notice of his claims. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8; Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998)

(rejecting imposition of a heightened pleading requirement for

civil rights claims). 

Plaintiff accuses all defendants but Davis and Douglas of

engaging in a plot at Avenal State Prison to retaliate against

plaintiff for his protected First Amendment activity (viz., suing

Lambert, Huskey, Depner and Mitchell), and violating plaintiff’s

due process rights in connection with a disciplinary proceeding

in which Lambert found plaintiff guilty of fraudulently claiming

to be the beneficiary of a disability determination under the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff avers that

Case 2:02-cv-01703-LKK -PAN Document 62 Filed 07/25/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Huskey, Depner and Mitchell subjected plaintiff to inhumane

conditions by placing him in restraints and transferring him to

administrative segregation before the disciplinary hearing. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants Davis and Douglas violated

plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment in the course of

treating plaintiff’s serious medical conditions (viz., moderate

to severe spinal stenosis and endocrine-mediated progressive

lower-extremity vascular disorder), and discriminated against

plaintiff, who uses a wheelchair, based on disability by

excluding him from services and programs in violation of the ADA.

The court hereby recommends defendants’ December 22, 2004,

motion to dismiss be denied and defendants be required to answer

plaintiff’s pleading.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: July 21, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:02-cv-01703-LKK -PAN Document 62 Filed 07/25/05 Page 4 of 4