Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01600/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01600-22/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

THOMAS CLINTON, No. CIV S-05-1600-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, 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 are a number of motions and/or requests filed by

plaintiff. These motions/requests include: Request/Motion to Accept Interference (Doc. 65),

Request/Motion to Accept Information Relative to Reason for Exception (Doc. 66), Request for

Production of Documents (Doc. 74), Request/Motion to Clarify Order (Doc. 79), Request for

Change of Venue (Doc. 80), Notice of Appeal to District Judge (Doc. 81), Request for Return of

Plaintiff’s Hard Copy Documents (Doc. 82), Request/Motion for Hearing by Phone (Doc. 83),

Motion to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 85), and Objections of Courts Failure to Respond

or Acknowledge Plaintiff Previous Motions (Doc. 87). Also pending before the court is a motion

to dismiss filed by defendant Meyers (Doc. 70). 

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 91 Filed 11/15/07 Page 1 of 10
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 Clerk of the Court will be directed to update the docket in this case to reflect

1

the correct defendants in this action.

2

I. Procedural History

Prior to addressing the specific motions/requests listed above, the undersigned

finds it necessary to summarize the status of this case. Plaintiff filed his original civil rights

complaint on August 11, 2005 (Doc. 1). Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint on March 23,

2006 (Doc. 27). This amended complaint was dismissed and plaintiff was granted leave to file a

second amended complaint (Doc. 28). Plaintiff’s second amended complaint was filed on April

17, 2006 (Doc. 30). This second amended complaint was dismissed on June 1, 2006 and plaintiff

was again granted leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 33). Plaintiff filed his third

amended complaint on June 21, 2006 naming 45 defendants (Doc. 35). This court then issued a

screening order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (Doc. 36). The undersigned found service to be

appropriate for only 21 defendants. This order was affirmed by the District Judge on September

27, 2006 (Doc. 49). As of the date of this order, the only defendants to this action were the

following: Sherer, Desantis, Barnes, DOE (correctional officer), Riley, Tripp, Mullin, Dixon,

Prosper, Cooper, Rice, DOE (chief medical doctor), Pomazal, DeForest, Woodford, Hickman,

Marshal, Myers, Arbini, Wilson, and Barrientos. The corresponding claims in the third 1

amended complaint that survived screening were: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25,

26, 29, 38, 43, 44, and 45

On January 25, 2007, defendants Arbini, Barnes, Barrientos, Cooper, Deforest,

Desantis, Dixon, Hickman, Marshall, Mullin, Pomazal, Prosper, Rice, Riley, Sherer, Tripp,

Wilson and Woodford filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 60). Plaintiff filed an opposition to the

motion to dismiss as well as supporting documentation, all of which were considered by the court

(Docs. 61, 62, 63). The undersigned then issued Findings and Recommendations on May 8,

2007, recommending the motion to dismiss be granted (Doc. 67). On September 27, 2007, the

District Judge issued an order adopting the Findings and Recommendations in part (Doc. 84). 

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 91 Filed 11/15/07 Page 2 of 10
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

The effect of this order was that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied

in part. The motion to dismiss was granted as to claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 25, 26, 43, 44,

and 45, and these claims have been dismissed. The motion was denied as to claims 2, 5, and 13. 

Accordingly, the only remaining defendants to this action are Desantis, Riley, Cooper, Meyers,

Marshall, DOE (correctional officer) and DOE (chief medical doctor). The only remaining

claims to this action are claims 2, 4, 5, 13, 15, 29, and 38. Defendants Cooper, Desantis, and

Riley filed an answer on October 12, 2007. 

 After the Findings and Recommendations were issued on this matter, plaintiff

filed several request/motions, in addition to his objections to the Findings and

Recommendations. These were filed prior to the District Judge’s Order Adopting Findings and

Recommendations. The requests/motions plaintiff filed included the following:

1. Request for Production of Documents (Doc. 74) filed June 25, 2007;

2. Request for to Clarify Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Protective

Order (Doc. 79) filed July 20, 2007;

3. Request for the Court to Change Venue (Doc. 80) filed August 10, 2007;

4. Appeal to Court Decision (Doc. 81) filed September 4, 2007;

5. Request for Order to Clerk for Return of Plaintiff’s Hard Copy Documents

(Doc. 82) filed September 4, 2007;

6. Request for Hearing by Phone (Doc. 83) filed September 4, 2007.

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint and

objections to this court’s perceived failure to respond to plaintiff’s motions.

II. Plaintiff’s Motions

Prior to issuing his order, the District Judge conducted a de novo review of the

entire file pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304. The court did not

determine that relief was appropriate on any particular request. To the extent plaintiff is

requesting a specific ruling on each of the requests/motions, the undersigned will discuss each of

them.

A. Request for Production of Documents (Doc. 74). Plaintiff filed a request

that he be allowed to conduct discovery prior to discovery being opened in order to show

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 91 Filed 11/15/07 Page 3 of 10
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

exhaustion of his administrative remedies, or his attempt to exhaust. However, the District Judge

found plaintiff was prevented from exhausting his administrative remedies on five claims, and

denied the motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies on those claims. In

addition, after conducting a de novo review of this case, the District Judge did not determine any

specific ruling was required. 

B. Request to Clarify Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for a Protective

Order (Doc. 79). Plaintiff’s request to clarify and objection to the Court’s granting a protective

order relieving defendants from responding to his request for production of documents again

centers on his argument that he was prevented from properly exhausting his administrative

remedies. As discussed above, the District Judge found he was prevented from exhausting on

five of his claims. In addition, the District Judge reviewed the case de novo and did not

determine additional information was required to issue his order. 

C. Untitled Request/Motion (Doc. 80). Plaintiff filed a request he claims is

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 37, and 401. Petitioner is requesting this Court

transfer this action to another court and suggests the Central District of California. However, the

federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity jurisdiction, be

brought only in "(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the

same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise

to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated,

or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the

action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The only court in which venue is

proper is this court. Therefore, transferring this action to a different court is not an option for

plaintiff. 

However, it appears that plaintiff’s real issue is with this Court’s adverse rulings

and/or perceived delay in issuing rulings. Therefore, the Court will construe this request as a

motion for recusal or motion to disqualify under 28 U.S.C. § 144, which provides as follows:

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 91 Filed 11/15/07 Page 4 of 10
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

Plaintiff also states that he is concerned this court has not received his filings and 2

has not responded to his motions. This court has received plaintiff’s filings and rules on

appropriate motions in due time. Plaintiff should be aware that if he wishes to receive

endorsed/filed copies of his filings, he must provide the Clerk of the Court with a self addressed

stamped envelope in addition to an extra copy of his filings. 

5

Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a

timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is

pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of

any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another

judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.

Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22 (1922), is the seminal case interpreting § 144. See U.S. v.

Azhocar, 581 F.2d 735, 738 (1976). As a preliminary matter, the Court in Berger held that the

judge against whom a disqualification motion is brought may pass on its legal sufficiency. See

Berger, 255 U.S. at 233. To be sufficient, the motion must state facts which, if true, fairly

support the allegation of bias or prejudice which stems from an extrajudicial source and which

may prevent a fair decision. See Azhocar, 581 F.2d at 740-41. Thus, the Supreme Court in

Berger also held that adverse rulings alone cannot constitute the necessary showing of bias or

prejudice. See Berger, 255 U.S. at 34. 

To the extent plaintiff’s motion is a request for recusal, this request is denied. 

Plaintiff’s grievance appears to relate to adverse rulings by this Court and the amount of time

required of this Court to rule on his motions/requests. This Court has a full docket and rules on

motions in due time. Plaintiff has not been singled out by the Court to delay the prosecution of

his case or cause him difficulty in obtaining a fair hearing. No motion or request by plaintiff has

been filed longer than four months without a ruling. In addition, as discussed above, adverse

rulings are insufficient to show bias or prejudice against plaintiff. Plaintiff has provided no

grounds for which a request for recusal could be granted.

D. Appeal to Court Decision (Doc. 81). Plaintiff is requesting the District Judge

to consider additional supporting information and review the Findings and Recommendations

issued by the undersigned. This document was filed prior to the District Judge’s Order and was

2

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 91 Filed 11/15/07 Page 5 of 10
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

6

part of the record when the District Judge conducted his de novo review. Therefore, this

document was considered by the District Judge and no further response is necessary.

E. Request/Motion for Hard Copy documents (Doc. 82). Plaintiff is

requesting this Court return all hard copies of documents plaintiff filed in order to appeal this

Court’s final determination of this case. However, original filings become part of this Court’s

record and remain with this Court. Upon plaintiff’s filing of an appeal with the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeal, a request will be made by that Court for documents filed in this case. Copies of

all documents requested by the Ninth Circuit will be forwarded directly to that Court. Therefore,

petitioner’s request for the return of documents will be denied.

F. Request/Motion for Hearing by Phone (Doc. 83). Petitioner is requesting a

“hearing by phone to defend Defendants defense” so the court will fully understand defendants

are interfering with his administrative remedies. Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m), motions in

prisoner cases are submitted on the record without oral argument unless the Court orders

otherwise. If the District Judge found oral argument to be appropriate in this matter, he would

have set the matter for hearing. However, no hearing was set and the District Judge issued his

order after conducting a de novo review of this case, which included this request. 

G. Other Motions. Plaintiff has objected to this court’s failure to specifically

rule on his Request/Motion to Accept Interference (Doc. 65) and his Request/Motion to Accept

Information Relative to Reason for Exception (Doc. 66). The documents were filed prior to the

undersigned’s Findings and Recommendations and were considered prior to issuing that order. 

No specific ruling was required for either document.

H. Motion to Amend and Accept Fourth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has

requested leave of court to file a fourth amended complaint following the partial grant of

defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s motion is not, however, accompanied by a proposed

amended complaint. As a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, plaintiff’s pleadings are subject

to evaluation by this court pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 91 Filed 11/15/07 Page 6 of 10
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

7

and 1915A(a). Because plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint, the court is

unable to evaluate it as required by law. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (Doc. 85) must,

therefore, be denied. In addition, plaintiff is cautioned that if he files another motion for leave to

amend, the Court will only entertain such a motion if plaintiff is attempting to amend the

surviving claims in his complaint or he has identified the DOE defendants. Attempts to amend

the claims that were dismissed pursuant to the granting of defendants’ motion to dismiss will not

be entertained. 

Plaintiff again claims he is not receiving copies of his filed documents returned to

him. Plaintiff has indicated he has provided the clerk with a second copy of his documents

presented for filing so that he may receive a copy back for his records. Plaintiff has not indicated

whether he has also provided the clerk with a self-addressed stamped envelope in which to

receive these documents. A self-addressed stamped envelope is required for plaintiff to receive a

copy of his filed documents. 

I. Objection of Courts Failure to Respond or Acknowledge Plaintiff Previous

Motions. Plaintiff is again complaining about his perceived failure of this court to timely

respond to his motions and failure to receive a copy of his filed documents. As set forth above,

this Court has a full docket and rules on motions in due time. Plaintiff has not been singled out

by the Court to delay the prosecution of his case or cause him difficulty in obtaining a fair

hearing. No motion or request by plaintiff has been filed longer than four months without a

ruling. Furthermore, as stated above, plaintiff must provide the Clerk of Court with a selfaddressed stamped envelope if he wishes to receive filed copies of his documents. 

III. Defendant Meyers’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 70)

Defendant Meyers filed a Motion to Dismiss on May 17, 2007. The basis of this

motion is that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendant

Meyers claims no factual allegations in the complaint pertain to him. Upon review of plaintiff’s

third amended complaint, the Court finds there is a possible error. On the list of defendants,

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 91 Filed 11/15/07 Page 7 of 10
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

This Court has already found claim number 38 to be sufficient. However, no 3

defendant by the name of Anderson has been served.

Defendant Meyers and/or Anderson was addressed above and will not be 4

addressed again.

8

defendant Meyers is listed for claim number 38. However, in the body of the complaint, claim

number 38 states John Anderson was plaintiff’s chief medical doctor who failed to treat a nail

fungus on his toe. Therefore, the court is requesting clarification from the plaintiff as to which

defendant is the proper defendant for this claim, Meyers or Anderson. 

Plaintiff shall file a notice with this court within 30 days as to which defendant is

the proper defendant for claim number 38. Defendant Meyers will then have 30 days in which to

respond. If plaintiff indicates that defendant Meyers is the proper defendant for claim number

38, defendant Meyers shall file either an amended motion to dismiss regarding the allegations at

claim 38 or an answer. If defendant files an answer, the existing Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 70)

will be deemed withdrawn. If plaintiff contends that the proper defendant for claim 38 is

Anderson, plaintiff may file an objection to defendant Meyers’ motion to dismiss within 30 days

of the date of this order. This court will then provide plaintiff the necessary documents for

service of Anderson. 

3

IV. Remaining Defendants

On September 27, 2007, the District Judge issued an order in which defendants’

motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The motion was denied as to claim

numbers 2, 5, and 13, which include defendants Desantis, Riley and Cooper. In addition, claims

4, 15, 29, and 38, regarding DOE defendants and defendants Marshall and Meyers/Anderson also

survived screening and have not been dismissed. Defendants Desantis, Riley, Cooper and 4

Marshall were moving parties on the motion to dismiss which has now been resolved. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 91 Filed 11/15/07 Page 8 of 10
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

9

Defendants Desantis, Riley and Cooper filed their answer on October 12, 2007. Defendant

Marshall did not join in that answer. Therefore, defendant Marshall is directed to file an answer

within 30 days of the date of this order. 

Defendants DOE, Correctional Officer, and DOE, Medical Doctor, have not yet

been identified and/or served. Plaintiff has been directed to provide additional information to

serve these defendants (Doc. 68). Plaintiff is reminded that now that an answer has been filed, 

discovery will opened, by separate order, and he will be able to seek such information through

discovery as well as the California Public Records Act, Calif. Gov't. Code § 6250, et seq., or

other means available to plaintiff. If access to the required information is denied or unreasonably

delayed, plaintiff may seek judicial intervention. Once additional information sufficient to effect

service is obtained, plaintiff shall notify the court whereupon plaintiff will be forwarded the

forms necessary for service by the U.S. Marshal. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to effect

service may result in the dismissal of unserved defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). After a

reasonable amount of time, if the identity of these defendants have not been discovered, this

court will issue an order to show cause why these two defendants should not be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for transfer and/or recusal is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s request for return of documents is denied;

3. Plaintiff shall file a notice with this court within 30 days as to which

defendant is the proper defendant for claim number 38;

4. Defendant Meyers will then have 30 days to file a response; 

5. If the proper defendant for claim 38 is Anderson, plaintiff may file an

objection to defendant Meyers’ motion to dismiss within 30 days of the date of this order;

6. If the proper defendant to claim 38 is Meyers, plaintiff will have 30 days

from the date of any amended motion to dismiss to respond to the motion;

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 91 Filed 11/15/07 Page 9 of 10
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

10

7. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 85) is

denied;

8. Defendant Marshall is directed to file an answer to plaintiff’s third

amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order;

9. Plaintiff shall promptly seek the identity of any doe defendant named in

his third amended complaint; and

10. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect the

remaining defendants to this action are Desantis, Riley, Cooper, Marshall, and Meyers.

DATED: November 15, 2007

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 91 Filed 11/15/07 Page 10 of 10