Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01430/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01430-2/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

G. DANIEL WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. L. MUNIZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01430-SI 

ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 19, 20

On September 24, 2019, the federal claims in this action were 

dismissed and this removed action was remanded to the San Francisco 

County Superior Court so that plaintiff could pursue his state law claims 

there. 

On October 17, 2019, plaintiff filed a “motion to set aside” the 

September 24, 2019, order and a “notice of total disability and unable to 

plead requesting ADA accommodations.” Docket Nos. 19 and 20. 

Plaintiff contends that prison officials at the California Medical Facility in 

Vacaville and at Corcoran State Prison (both located in the Eastern District 

of California) are not providing adequate accommodation for his serious 

vision problems and the failure to do so has impeded his ability to prepare 

the amended complaint that this court ordered in June 2019. Although it is 

doubtful this court has jurisdiction to entertain any request in this action 

that has been remanded to the superior court, the court will assume for 

present purposes that it does have jurisdiction, given that plaintiff is 

seeking an order undoing an earlier order from this court. 

Case 3:19-cv-01430-SI Document 21 Filed 10/21/19 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

The motion to set aside the September 24, 2019, order is DENIED. 

Docket No. 19. The federal claims properly were dismissed because the 

original complaint did not state a federal claim upon which relief could be 

granted and plaintiff did not file an amended complaint to cure the many 

deficiencies identified in the order of dismissal with leave to amend, 

although he had more than three months to prepare that amended 

complaint. Plaintiff states that he was working on his amended complaint, 

but his exhibit suggests that only the first page of the amended complaint 

has been completed in the many months he had to prepare the document, 

Docket No. 18-1 at 15, and elsewhere he reports that he is unable to plead, 

see Docket No. 19 at 1. During the time when he could have been preparing 

his amended complaint, plaintiff devoted substantial time to other efforts, 

e.g., filing typed documents in other cases in other courts, see Docket No. 

18-1 at 16-18, and preparing lengthy typed memoranda to complain to 

prison officials about his care, id. at 39-40, 52-56. At least part of 

plaintiff’s problem appears to be that he is trying to do too many different 

things with his limited resources, rather than concentrate his efforts on this 

litigation. 

Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling prison officials to provide 

accommodations for him is DENIED. Docket No. 20. Plaintiff essentially 

concedes that he cannot prepare an amended complaint and litigate this 

action. Without a pleading that states a claim, the court would not grant 

interim relief such as ordering prison officials in the Eastern District of 

California to provide ADA accommodations or appointing counsel. One 

criteria for the issuance of a preliminary injunction is that the plaintiff has 

demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. see Winter v. Natural 

Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Another requirement

for a preliminary injunction is that the injunctive relief be based on claims 

Case 3:19-cv-01430-SI Document 21 Filed 10/21/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

pled in the complaint because the “court’s equitable power lies only over 

the merits of the case or controversy before it.” Pacific Radiation 

Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015); 

see, e.g., id. at 636-38 (district court properly denied plaintiff’s request for 

an injunction to prevent HIPAA violation, where plaintiff had not asserted 

a claim for a HIPAA violation). A primary consideration for appointment 

of counsel is the likelihood of success on the merits. See Wilborn v. 

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). But the court cannot 

make those sorts of determinations without an amended complaint, which 

plaintiff has not provided and states he cannot provide. Moreover, the 

ADA accommodation problems are occurring at the California Medical 

Facility and Corcoran State Prison, both of which are located in the Eastern 

District of California. See Docket No. 18 at 2-3. Docket No. 18-1. If 

plaintiff believes that the dismissal of his federal claims is due to conduct 

of prison officials at the California Medical Facility or Corcoran State 

Prison, he can file a new action against those officials asserting a claim for 

denial of access to the courts or an ADA claim or both. The proper venue 

for such an action would be the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of California rather than the Northern District of California. 

The clerk will send a copy of this order to the San Francisco County 

Superior Court for filing in Case Number CGC 17-560446. The clerk 

should highlight this paragraph so the receiving court understands the case 

in which the document is to be filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01430-SI Document 21 Filed 10/21/19 Page 3 of 3