Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01067/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01067-3/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

KENNETH ALAN SIERRA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 16-cv-1067 MCE KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 28, 2016, the undersigned recommended that plaintiff’s application 

to proceed in forma pauperis be denied on grounds that plaintiff had three prior actions dismissed 

which qualified as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF No. 24.) The undersigned also found 

that plaintiff did not meet the imminent injury exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Id.)

Plaintiff’s complaint is difficult to understand. However, it appears 

that plaintiff alleges that prison officials have failed to treat him for 

lower back problems. Plaintiff appears to allege that he suffered 

these back problems as long ago as 1985. Plaintiff raised similar, if 

not the same claims, in Sierra v. Moon, 1: 11-cv-1214 LJO MJS 

(PC). In that action, plaintiff alleged that defendants planned to 

move him from an acute care hospital housing unit to a housing unit 

with a lower level of care and failed to diagnose his alleged 

paraplegia as other than a faked disability. (See 1: 11-cv-1214 LJO 

MJS (PC) at ECF No. 16 at 2.) In 1:11-cv-1214 LJO MJS (PC), 

plaintiff also claimed that he suffered from paraplegia from injuries, 

Case 2:16-cv-01067-MCE-KJN Document 38 Filed 12/23/16 Page 1 of 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

2

possibly sustained in 1982, leaving him with a painful nerve 

disorder unnoticed by defendants who wrongly accused him of 

having an acute mental disorder. (Id. at 3.)

The district court in 1:11-cv-1214 LJO MJS (PC) found that 

plaintiff’s claims alleging an untreated back injury were frivolous 

because they were combined with patently frivolous claims alleging 

plaintiff’s legal ownership of Nike business worldwide, etc.

[Footnote omitted.] (Id. at 3-5.) While plaintiff’s instant complaint 

does not include other patently frivolous claims, the fact that 

plaintiff raised the same claims regarding his alleged back problems 

in 1: 11-cv-1214 LJO MJS (PC) indicates that plaintiff is not in 

imminent danger of serious physical injury. For these reasons, the 

undersigned finds that plaintiff has not met the imminent danger 

exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

(Id. 24 at 2-3.) 

On August 23, 2016, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF 

No. 26.) Attached are several documents indicating that plaintiff used a wheelchair for several 

years. For example, plaintiff attached a form dated November 23, 2011, stating that he was a fulltime wheelchair user. (Id. at 51.) Plaintiff attached a chrono dated November 22, 2011, stating 

that he was permanently and totally disabled. (Id. at 53.) Plaintiff attached a classification 

chrono dated August 8, 2012, stating that he was totally disabled, used a wide wheelchair and 

could do “no standing or walking at all.” (Id. at 54.) Plaintiff attached another classification 

chrono from 2014 stating that he was “totally disabled (bedridden).” (Id. at 57.) Plaintiff 

attached a medical chrono from July 22, 2014, stating that he required a large size wheelchair. 

(Id.at 58.) Plaintiff also attached medical records stating that he requested that his bed be close to 

the sink. (Id. at 61.) Plaintiff attached the August 18, 2014 chrono granting this request. (Id. at 

63.)

Plaintiff also attached to his objections a form titled “Disability Placement Verification.” 

(Id. at 65.) This document indicates that plaintiff is allowed an “intermittent wheelchair,” 

meaning he may use it outside of his cell only. Plaintiff wrote on this document that Correctional 

Officer Walker handed him this document on April 13, 2016. (Id.)

On September 1, 2016, the undersigned issued an order finding that a claim by plaintiff 

challenging the denial of a wheelchair for in-cell use may met the imminent injury exception to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) if plaintiff alleged that he suffered serious risk of harm, or has suffered 

Case 2:16-cv-01067-MCE-KJN Document 38 Filed 12/23/16 Page 2 of 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

3

serious harm, as a result of not being able to use his wheelchair in his cell. (ECF No. 28 at 2.) 

For that reason, the undersigned vacated the July 28, 2016 findings and recommendations and 

granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint raising his claim alleging denial of access to 

a wheelchair for in-cell use. (Id.) 

On December 16, 2016, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 36.) The 

amended complaint is difficult to understand. Plaintiff appears to allege that he is still being 

denied access to a wheelchair for in-cell use. Plaintiff also appears to allege that his bed is no 

longer located near his sink. 

Although questionable, plaintiff’s denial of access to a wheelchair for in-cell use and not 

having his bed near the sink in his cell may meet the imminent danger exception to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). However, after reviewing the amended complaint, the undersigned cannot determine 

whether plaintiff has met this exception. Accordingly, in an abundance of caution, the 

undersigned directs Supervising Deputy Attorney Monica Anderson to file a status report 

addressing the following issues: 1) is plaintiff allowed to use a wheelchair in his cell and, if not, 

why not? and 2) was plaintiff’s bed previously near the sink in his cell and if yes but it is no 

longer true, why not? 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, Supervising Deputy Attorney General 

Monica Anderson shall file the status report discussed above;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on Supervising Deputy 

Attorney General Monica Anderson. 

Dated: December 23, 2016

Si1067.fb

Case 2:16-cv-01067-MCE-KJN Document 38 Filed 12/23/16 Page 3 of 3