Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05488/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05488-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN CARLOS DUARTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. D. ANDREWS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-5488-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

CONTINUE TRIAL

ORDER VACATING SEPTEMBER 19, 2006

TRIAL AND SETTING TRIAL OF

OCTOBER 11, 2006

ORDER VACATING TRANSPORTATION

WRIT FOR DUARTE

ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER

BRIEFING

Plaintiff John Carlos Duarte (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights

by federal actors. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed January 8,

2004, against defendants Puentes and Duffle (“Defendants”) on Plaintiff’s equal protection

claim. Trial is currently set for September 19, 2006.

On September 1, 2006, the parties filed a joint stipulation to the continue the trial date. 

The stipulation states that Defendant Duffle is unavailable during the month of September and

both parties wish to call Defendant Duffle to testify. Good cause having been presented, the

court will vacate the pending trial date and move trial in this action to October 11, 2006.

Upon further review of the file in this action, the court finds it necessary to have the

Case 1:03-cv-05488-SMS Document 56 Filed 09/11/06 Page 1 of 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 2

parties brief one further issue prior to trial. While there is no Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals case addressing this issue, a review of the decisions of other Circuits indicates

that it is possible no Bivens cause of action is available against these Defendants because they are

private individuals working at a private prison and they are not federal employees. See Holly v.

Scott, 434 F.3d 287 (4 Cir. 2006), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 126 S.Ct. 2333 (2006), and Peoples th

v. CCA Detention Centers, 422 F.3d 1090 (10 Cir. 2005), vacated in part and aff'd in part, 449 th

F.3d 1097 (10 Cir. 2006) (en banc ). As such, the court requests further briefing from the th

parties. It such briefing, Defendants should inform the court whether they believe a Bivens

cause of action is available against them. The parties should also address whether any other

remedy is available to address Plaintiff’s equal protection claim. The parties should file

supplemental briefs pursuant to the briefing schedule outlined below.

Accordingly, good cause having been presented to the court, the court ORDERS that:

1. The parties’ request to continue the trial is GRANTED;

2. The trial currently set for September 19, 2006 is VACATED;

3. The transportation writ issued on August 23, 2006, requiring Plaintiff to be brought to

court on September 19, 2006, is VACATED; and

4. The parties are DIRECTED to brief the issue of whether Plaintiff has stated a claim

against Defendants pursuant to Bivens. The parties SHALL file briefs on this issue by

4:00 p.m. on September 22, 2006. Any response to the other parties’ brief may be filed

by 4:00 p.m. on October 2, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05488-SMS Document 56 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 2