Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02458/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02458-2/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TAJHIKEEM WOODS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RODDRICK, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-2458 MCE AC P 

ORDER and 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner at the California Health Care Facility (CHCF) in Stockton, has 

filed a motion for protective order in this action,1 informing the court that he attempted suicide on 

July 30, 2015, due to the “verbal/mental abuse” of correctional staff at his previous institution, 

including “us[ing] his mental disorder and his confidential mental health information as a tool to 

torture the plaintiff.” ECF No. 27 at 1. Plaintiff also alleges physical abuse: “When petitioner 

woke up, he wasn’t receiving CPR. He was being beat by Correctional Officer Zaragosa et al., . . 

. [and] still [hasn’t] received proper medical attention . . . .” Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff states that he “is 

in a vary fragil mental state of mind” (sic), and asks the court to place him in protective custody; 

order medical care including x-rays of his foot (which he believes was broken by the recent 

alleged beating); and to commence substantive review of these matters without plaintiff 

 

1

 Although plaintiff’s motion was received by the court on September 10, 2010, it was initially 

mistakenly filed in the wrong case. See Case No. 15cv0564 GEB AC P, ECF No. 21. 

Case 2:14-cv-02458-MCE-AC Document 28 Filed 09/18/15 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

attempting to exhaust an administrative grievance. Id. at 1-3. 

In addition, plaintiff has submitted exhibits of prior grievances that he has attempted to 

pursue related to the matters addressed in the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 15). These 

documents, in tandem with plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 23) to the undersigned’s Findings and 

Recommendations filed June 12, 2015 (ECF No. 20), indicate that plaintiff may have been 

prevented from pursuing his administrative remedies due to circumstances beyond his control. 

Judgment was based on a finding that plaintiff had commenced the action prior to administrative 

exhaustion (ECF Nos. 20, 24). The dismissal was accordingly without prejudice. Id. It now 

appears that the Findings and Recommendations were issued on the basis of a record related to 

the exhaustion issue that was incomplete due to circumstance beyond plaintiff’s control. 

For these reasons, the undersigned will recommend that the judgment entered in this case 

on August 20, 2015 (ECF No. 25), be vacated for further consideration of plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 15). 

More immediately, the Office of the Attorney General will be directed to inquire 

regarding plaintiff’s immediate safety, his alleged urgent need for medical care, and his current 

mental status. Because defendant has not yet been served process in this case, this order will be 

directed to a Supervising Deputy Attorney General. 

 Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Office of the California Attorney General is directed to contact CHCF authorities 

forthwith, to determine the present status of plaintiff’s safety and mental and physical treatment 

needs. 

 2. Because no defendant has been served process in this case, the Clerk of Court is 

directed to fax a copy of this order to the Office of the California Attorney General, Attention: 

Supervising Deputy Attorney General Monica Anderson. 

 3. Ms. Anderson or her designee is directed to file a status report with the court within 

fourteen (14) days after the filing date of this order, and to serve a copy of the report on plaintiff. 

 In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the judgment entered in this action 

August 20, 2015, ECF No. 25 (and therefore the Findings and Recommendations filed June 12, 

Case 2:14-cv-02458-MCE-AC Document 28 Filed 09/18/15 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

2015, ECF No. 20), be vacated for purposes of further consideration of plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint (ECF No. 15). 

This recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this 

case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Although this recommendation benefits 

plaintiff, he is entitled to file written objections within fourteen days after service of this order, 

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: September 18, 2015 

Case 2:14-cv-02458-MCE-AC Document 28 Filed 09/18/15 Page 3 of 3