Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03964/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03964-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMAAL SMITH,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

C.E. DUCART; D. MELTON;

LAWRY; SERGEANT J. LACY;

OFFICER A. SCHAAD; OFFICER S.

SKERIK; OFFICER H. HANOVER;

OFFICER M. HUMPHREY;

OFFICER P. HICKS; SERGEANT

ANDREW BARNEBURG; OFFICER

L. NORTHRUP, 

Defendants.

/

No. C 15-3964 WHA (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR

LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED

COMPLAINT; INSTRUCTIONS TO

CLERK; DENYING DEFENDANTS’

DISPOSITIVE MOTION;

SCHEDULING RENEWED

DISPOSITIVE MOTION;

GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER; DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Dkt. Nos. 57, 58 59, 64, 69)

Plaintiff, an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison, filed this civil rights case under 42

U.S.C. 1983 alleging that prison officials at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), where plaintiff

was formerly housed, violated his constitutional rights. The complaint listed eight “Doe”

defendants, and when plaintiff submitted their names, the complaint was amended retroactively

to reflect the names of all the defendants. 

Plaintiff has filed two motions to file an amended complaint to make one change. The

original complaint alleges “damage to his ear and head, pain and suffering, shame, humiliation,

degradation, emotional distress, embarrassment, mental distress, and other injuries.” The

proposed amended complaint omits shame, humiliation, degradation, emotional distress, and

Case 3:15-cv-03964-WHA Document 72 Filed 07/12/16 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

mental distress from the alleged damages, but continues to allege “damage to his ear and head,

pain and suffering, embarrassment, and other injuries.” Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s

motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 57, 58) is GRANTED. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 15(a).

The clerk shall file the proposed amended complaint attached docket number 58 as the

“First Amended Complaint.” The First Amended Complaint is deemed to name the defendants

listed in the caption of this order in lieu of Doe defendants 1-8.

In light of the amended complaint, defendants’ motion to dismiss or alternatively for

summary judgment (ECF No. 64) on exhaustion grounds based on the original complaint is

DENIED as moot. Defendants shall file a new dispositive motion (which may or may not be a

renewed version of the dispositive motion they filed) within 28 days of the date this order is

filed. Plaintiff’s opposition is due within 28 days of the date the renewed motion to dismiss is

filed, and defendants shall file a reply brief within 14 days of the date the opposition is filed. 

The provisions of the Order of Service (ECF No. 15) governing the filing, briefing and

disposition of dispositive motions remain in effect to the extent not contradicted herein. 

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining

order seeking to stop defendants from using medical records that they obtained from the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), and to stop the CDCR

from supplying his medical records related to this lawsuit. Plaintiff filed a similar motion

previously (ECF No. 54), which was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, because

plaintiff medical condition at issue in his claims for physical and mental injuries and waived

any doctor-patient privilege, it was ordered that defendants may use plaintiff’s medical records

to defend against plaintiff’s lawsuit, albeit only those records that relate to plaintiff’s claims, but

they shall not share plaintiff’s medical records with any outside parties. Plaintiff’s motion (ECF

No. 59) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Once again, defendants may use

plaintiff’s medical records to the extent they are relevant to the defense against plaintiff’s

claims. If plaintiff believes that defendants are using any medical records which are not

Case 3:15-cv-03964-WHA Document 72 Filed 07/12/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

relevant to a defense against his claims, plaintiff may make that argument when he opposes the

dispositive motion in which defendants rely upon such records. Defendants may not disclose

plaintiff’s records to any outside parties. Further, because plaintiff indicates that he does not

want any more medical records, defendants and other prison officials shall not send him any

further medical records. 

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 69) is DENIED. Plaintiff has

thus far been able to pursue his claims effectively. Plaintiff shall not renew his request for

appointment of counsel because if the circumstances of this case change so as to necessitate

counsel to assist plaintiff — for example, if trial becomes necessary — the case will be referred

to the Federal Pro Bono Project of the San Francisco Bar Association for location of pro bono

counsel who is willing to represent plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12 , 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-03964-WHA Document 72 Filed 07/12/16 Page 3 of 3