Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00207/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00207-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES E. TURNER, No. CIV S-06-0207-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

ROD HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1). The court is

required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity

or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Plaintiff names the following as defendants: Rod Hickman, Terry Farmer, Bruce

Mitchell, Tom Carey, Jeanne Woodford, Margarita Perez, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Plaintiff

challenges the California Board of Prison Terms’ denial of parole. Plaintiff, however, clearly

states that he is not challenging the fact or duration of his confinement. Specifically, plaintiff

states: “Plaintiff does not contest not challenge the duration of his imprisonment. And declares

that victory in this lawsuit will only grant him another opportunity to enter the door of the board

Case 2:06-cv-00207-FCD-CMK Document 13 Filed 09/07/06 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

The court notes that, according to plaintiff’s complaint, plaintiff may not have 1

exhausted his administrative remedies. However, because exhaustion is not a jurisdictional

requirement for bringing suit, see Rumbles v. Hill, 182 F.3d 1064, 1070 (9th Cir. 1999), and

because failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense which can only be raised by defendants, see

Wyatt v. Terhune, 280 F.3d 1238, 1245-46 (9th Cir. 2002), sua sponte dismissal at this time for

failure to exhaust is not appropriate. 

2

of prison terms . . .” Plaintiff summarizes the nature of this suit in his complaint as follows:

This case is about the persistent pattern, failure of the California

Board of Prison Terms . . . to apply only constitutional criteria, that has

been legal approved and adopted pursuant to the California Government

Administrative Procedures Act . . . when determining plaintiff’s eligibility

for parole.

And this case is also about the persistent pattern of psychological

retaliation which has chilling effects from the amount of pressure and

“coercion” repeatedly since 1997 to 2005 on plaintiff and possibly “third

parties constitutionally protected United States First Amendment rights”

and their freedom of speech and freedom to petition the government

without fear of retaliation and irreparable harm. (emphasis in original). 

The complaint appears to state a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable 1

opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005).

The court, therefore, finds that service is appropriate and will direct service by the U.S. Marshal

without pre-payment of costs. Plaintiff is informed, however, that this action cannot proceed

further until plaintiff complies with this order. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with

this order may result in dismissal of the action. See Local Rule 11-110. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendant(s): 

HICKMAN,

FARMER,

MITCHELL,

CAREY,

WOODFORD,

Case 2:06-cv-00207-FCD-CMK Document 13 Filed 09/07/06 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

PEREZ, and

SCHWARZENEGGER;

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form for each

defendant identified above, one summons, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the complaint

(Doc. 1); and

3. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall complete

the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the

court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. Eight completed USM-285 form(s); and

d. Nine copies of the endorsed complaint.

DATED: September 5, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00207-FCD-CMK Document 13 Filed 09/07/06 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES E. TURNER, No. CIV S-06-0207-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs.

ROD HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order:

 1 completed summons form;

 completed USM-285 form(s); and

 copies of the complaint.

DATED: __________________ ____________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-00207-FCD-CMK Document 13 Filed 09/07/06 Page 4 of 4