Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00593/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00593-33/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNARD DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES WALKER, et al.,

Defendants.

 

KENNARD DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES WALKER, et al.,

Defendants. 

No. 2:08-cv-0593 KJM DB

 No. 2:10-cv-2139 KJM DB

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with these civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

As described in detail in this court’s January 6, 2023 order and findings and recommendations, 

plaintiff has, among other things, six pending motions1to be declared competent to proceed pro 

1 Case No. 2:08-cv-0593 KJM DB (ECF Nos. 248, 249, 258, 263, 264, 271); Case No. 2:10-cv2139 KJM DB (ECF Nos. 334, 340, 342, 345, 349). 

Case 2:08-cv-00593-KJM-SCR Document 286 Filed 02/28/23 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

27

28

2

se in these cases. (See ECF No. 281.2). In the January 6 order, this court ordered plaintiff’s 

mental health clinicians to submit a report on the current status of plaintiff’s mental health. That 

report was due February 6, 2023. When the court received no response to that order, the 

undersigned issued an order to show cause. Defendants have responded to the order to show 

cause.

3

 

Counsel for the defendants employed by CDCR, Deputy Attorney General Matthew Ross 

Wilson, states that defendants are not plaintiff’s mental health clinicians. (ECF No. 285.) 

Apparently for that reason, Mr. Wilson forwarded this court’s order to the litigation coordinator at 

the prison where plaintiff is currently incarcerated “so that the report could be prepared.” Mr. 

Wilson then states that he “did not receive the requested report by the February 6 deadline, and I 

have had to follow up regarding its status.” Mr. Wilson concludes by stating: “I am informed 

that the report has not been completed. I believe that an additional thirty days would be sufficient 

for the report to be completed by Plaintiff’s clinicians and filed by my office.”

This court has a number of concerns regarding Mr. Wilson’s response. First, Mr. Wilson 

appears to feel he bears little or no responsibility for the mental health report ordered by this 

court. In the January 6 order, this court used language identical to that used by Chief Judge 

Mueller in her May 18, 2017 order requiring a report on plaintiff’s mental health. (ECF Nos. 132, 

281.) When the prison was unable to meet the deadline for providing the report ordered by Chief 

Judge Mueller, the CDCR defendants counsel at that time, Deputy Attorney General William J. 

Douglas, sought an extension of time. (ECF No. 136.) Mr. Douglas detailed his efforts in 

attempting to comply with Chief Judge Mueller’s order. In granting the extension of time, Chief 

Judge Mueller made clear that defendants were expected to file the report - “Defendants shall file 

2 Plaintiff makes essentially the same allegations regarding his medical care, among other things, 

in the two cases covered by this order and, with few exceptions, files the same documents in both 

cases. Therefore, the court has and will continue to issue the same orders in both cases. Unless 

otherwise noted, the electronic filing numbers in the text refer to the docket in the 2008 case. 

3 Defendant Haynes provided a response in the 2010 case. (ECF No. 361.) His counsel notes that 

Mr. Haynes is not employed by CDCR and therefore does not have access to plaintiff’s mental 

health clinicians. This court agrees that neither Mr. Haynes nor his counsel bear any 

responsibility for the preparation of the report on plaintiff’s current mental health. 

Case 2:08-cv-00593-KJM-SCR Document 286 Filed 02/28/23 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

27

28

3

a response to the Court’s May 18, 2017 Order on or before July 1, 2017.” (ECF No. 139.) Mr. 

Douglas, on behalf of defendants, then filed the mental health report. (ECF No. 143.) Given this 

history, it is not unreasonable to expect that defendants’ current counsel would take the same 

responsibility for responding to this court’s January 6 order. This court expects Mr. Wilson to 

take that responsibility going forward. 

Second, Mr. Wilson fails to provide any good cause for an extension of time. He simply 

states that he “believes” an additional 30 days “would be sufficient.” This court recognizes that 

preparation of the report may be time-consuming. Therefore, additional time will be permitted. 

However, Mr. Wilson is warned that if the report cannot be filed within the time provided, he 

must file a motion for an extension of time prior to the due date for the report and he must attempt 

to make a showing of good cause for the additional time requested. 

Finally, this court notes that plaintiff’s numerous motions to regain competency status are 

redundant. To simplify the dockets, this court will dismiss all except plaintiff’s most recent 

motions. Plaintiff is advised that he will not suffer any prejudice from this clarification of the 

court’s dockets. If plaintiff made arguments in his prior motions that he has not repeated in his 

most recent motions, this court will consider those prior arguments when it issues a 

recommendation on plaintiff’s motion to regain competency status. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendants’ counsel’s request for an extension of time to submit the mental health 

report described in this court’s January 6 order is granted. Defendants’ counsel shall 

file that report within thirty days of the filed date of this order. 

2. Plaintiff’s motions to regain competency filed in Case No. 2:08-cv-0593 KJM DB P 

(ECF Nos. 248, 249, 258, 263, and 264) are dismissed as redundant. The competency 

issue in the 2008 case will proceed on plaintiff’s motion filed September 8, 2022 (ECF 

No. 271). 

////

////

////

Case 2:08-cv-00593-KJM-SCR Document 286 Filed 02/28/23 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

27

28

4

3. Plaintiff’s motions to regain competency filed in Case No. 2:10-cv-2139 KJM DB P 

(ECF Nos. 334, 340, 342, and 345) are dismissed as redundant. The competency issue 

in the 2010 case will proceed on plaintiff’s motion filed November 28, 2022 (ECF No. 

349). 

Dated: February 28, 2023

DLB:9

DB prisoner inbox/civil rights/S/davi0593&2139.comp rpt eot

Case 2:08-cv-00593-KJM-SCR Document 286 Filed 02/28/23 Page 4 of 4