Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01680/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01680-19/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 

NATHAN HILL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-1680 DJC AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks relief under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. The action is before a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 Several matters are before the court: defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 86); an 

order to show cause issued to plaintiff related to his failure to timely oppose that motion (ECF 

No. 88); plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 96); and plaintiff’s request 

for judicial notice (ECF Nos. 98). Upon review of these matters and of the docket generally, the 

court issues the following orders. 

 I. RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 The order to show cause (OSC) issued on September 11, 2023 (see ECF No. 88), after 

expiration of plaintiff’s deadline to respond the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 86). It appears 

however, that the OSC crossed in the mail with a late-filed opposition to the motion, ECF No. 90. 

Plaintiff’s second opposition (ECF No. 97), filed in response to the OSC, is largely duplicative of 

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 99 Filed 09/27/23 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 

the first. Because plaintiff has clearly demonstrated his intent to oppose the motion, the OSC will 

be discharged and plaintiff’s initial untimeliness will be excused. 

 II. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

 Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 96, is the second he has filed 

in less than two weeks. See ECF No. 91. The first motion was denied. ECF No. 93. The two 

motions are identical in content down to the signature date of August 31, 2023. Compare ECF 

No. 91, with ECF No. 96. Accordingly, the instant motion will be denied as duplicative. 

 III. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND STATUS OF DOE DEFENDANT 

 In plaintiff’s request for judicial notice, he asks for it to be noted that the undersigned has 

made “another (repetitive) mistake,” as it relates to Captain Gallagher. ECF No. 98 at 1. 

Specifically, he asks the court to take notice of the “fact” that “Cpt. Gallagher . . . is the ONLY 

Cpt. [he has] ever named in any papers sent to . . . court.” Id. (brackets added). Plaintiff further 

claims that he has sent Captain Gallagher’s name to the court “at least [five times].” Id. 

 Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2) provides that courts may take judicial notice of facts 

that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 

questioned. Plaintiff’s request does not present judicially noticeable facts and judicial notice will 

be denied. Plaintiff’s request, however, sheds light on his previous request for clarification 

regarding the status of originally-named defendant Captain Gallagher. See ECF No. 87. In the 

interests of justice, for the reasons that follow, plaintiff will be provided a limited opportunity to 

clarify his position. 

 On screening of the Second Amended Complaint (SAC), the undersigned found that 

plaintiff had stated a cognizable claim of deliberate indifference to his safety (Claim Two) against 

defendants including “the Doe defendant captain who gave the initial order to cuff plaintiff in his 

cell in August 2019.” ECF No. 54 at 11. The SAC did not identify the captain who had given the 

order. To the contrary, it affirmatively alleged that the captain in question was “unknown... at 

this time.” ECF No. 36 at 8. 

 The screening order also found that the SAC did not state any claim against Captain 

Gallagher, who had been named but against whom no allegations of wrongdoing were identified. 

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 99 Filed 09/27/23 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 

ECF No. 54 at 11. Accordingly, the undersigned recommended that Captain Gallagher be 

dismissed. Id. Plaintiff failed to file objections to the findings and recommendations even after 

being provided with additional time to do so,1 and the recommendations were adopted, ECF No. 

72. 

 Adoption of the findings and recommendations means, in relevant part, that the case now 

proceeds on Claim Two against defendants including a Doe defendant captain, but that Captain 

Gallagher has been dismissed with prejudice. Id. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice now 

appears to suggest that Captain Gallagher may be the captain whose actions are described in 

Claim Two. If that is what plaintiff means, then the order at ECF No. 72 is internally 

inconsistent. If plaintiff does not mean that Captain Gallagher is the same person as the Doe 

captain in Claim Two, but is reminding the court of different allegations he has made against 

Captain Gallagher in other pleadings, that is a different matter. 

Before acting on the pending motion to dismiss, or considering any further case 

management action, the court will direct plaintiff to clarify by completing the form attached to 

this order. 

CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The order to show cause issued September 11, 2023, ECF No. 88, is DISCHARGED; 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 96, is DENIED; 

 3. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice (ECF No. 98) is DENIED; 

 4. Within fourteen days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the 

document attached to this order which informs the court whether he means to allege that Captain 

Gallagher is the unidentified captain at issue on Claim Two of the SAC. 

DATED: September 26, 2023 

1

 See ECF Nos. 56, 61, 62 (orders granting extensions of time to file objections). 

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 99 Filed 09/27/23 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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NATHAN HILL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-1680 DJC AC P 

PLAINTIFF’S IDENTIFICATION OF 

UNIDENTIFIED CAPTAIN (“DOE 2”) 

 CHECK ONE: 

 The unidentified defendant in Claim Two of the second amended complaint (see ECF 

No. 36 at 8), identified at screening as “the Doe defendant captain who gave the initial order to 

cuff plaintiff in his cell in August 2019,” is Captain Gallagher who was employed at California 

State Prison – Corcoran during the period in question. 

 The unidentified Doe defendant in Claim Two of the second amended complaint (see 

ECF No. 36 at 8) is not Captain Gallagher but a different individual. 

DATED: 

 _______________________________ 

 NATHAN HILL 

 Plaintiff Pro Se 

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 99 Filed 09/27/23 Page 4 of 4