Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05646/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05646-5/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDALL E. ELLIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVEN CAMBRA, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:02-CV-05646-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AS MODIFIED

HEREIN, AND GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

 (Docs. 56 and 61)

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO FILE

A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY

DAYS

(Doc. 22)

Plaintiff Randall E. Ellis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On August 31, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

which was served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. After obtaining an extension of time,

Plaintiff filed an objection to the Findings and Recommendations on November 16, 2005.

Case 1:02-cv-05646-AWI -SKO Document 72 Filed 03/03/06 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305,

this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

analysis.

The Findings and Recommendations shall be modified only with respect to the claims

against Defendant Drew. In his opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiff provided

only the Director’s Level response to inmate appeal log number PBSP-D-00-00626, dated March

21, 2001. (Opp., Exhibit H.) In his objection, Plaintiff provides the complete appeal. (Obj.,

Exhibit A.) Based on the complete appeal, the court finds that Plaintiff adequately exhausted his

claims against Defendant Drew. 

The court notes that in his objections, Plaintiff argues that he participated in a group

appeal regarding the issues pertaining to the SHU, which the Magistrate Judge found

unexhausted. Plaintiff states that proof of exhaustion is in the hands of his former co-plaintiff

and argues that he should be allowed time to obtain this proof from the former co-plaintiff. The

court has reviewed the docket of the pending case brought by Plaintiff’s former co-plaintiff,

Joseph Paez v. Steven Cambra, Jr., et al., CV F 02-556 AWI SMS P, and evidence regarding a

group appeal has not been filed in that action. The pending motion to dismiss was filed on April

1, 2005. Plaintiff has been on notice for almost a year that he needed to obtain and provide the

court will all relevant evidence regarding exhaustion. Thus, the court will not delay ruling on the

motion to dismiss any longer to allow Plaintiff time to find more evidence. However, in the

interests of justice, if Plaintiff obtains information regarding exhaustion in the near future,

Plaintiff may file a motion for leave to amend the complaint to contain exhausted claims that

have been dismissed. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 31, 2005, is adopted in full

with exception to the claims against Defendant Drew;

2. Defendants Cambra, Gomez, Terhune, Drew, Galaza, Meske, Andrews, and

Bendon’s unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, filed April 1, 2005, is GRANTED IN

Case 1:02-cv-05646-AWI -SKO Document 72 Filed 03/03/06 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

PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim based on constant illumination in the

Security Housing Unit (SHU) against Defendants Galaza, Meske, Keller,

and Andrews; equal protection claim based on constant illumination in the

SHU against Defendants Galaza, Meske, Keller, and Andrews; Eighth

Amendment claim based on inadequate outdoor exercise against

Defendants Cambra, Galaza, Meske, Keller, and Andrews; Eighth

Amendment claim based on inadequate clothing in the winter months

against Defendants Cambra, Galaza, Meske, and Andrews; Eighth

Amendment claim based on unsanitary conditions in the SHU against

Defendants Galaza and Andrews; Eighth Amendment claim based on lack

of adequate hygiene supplies against Defendants Cambra, Galaza, Meske,

and Andrews; Eighth Amendment claim based on inadequate laundry

exchanges against Defendants Galaza and Andrews; due process claim for

deprivation of property against Defendant Galaza; Eighth Amendment

medical care claim against Defendants Galaza and Bendon based on the

failure to provide medically indicated footwear; due process claims based

premised on policies enacted by Defendants Cambra, Gomez, and Terhune

governing gang validation and review procedures that deprive Plaintiff of

meaningful reviews and subject him to an indeterminate SHU term which

affects his parole suitability; and ex post facto claim against Defendants

Cambra, Gomez, and Terhune are DISMISSED from this action, without

prejudice, for failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies; and

b. Defendants Cambra, Gomez, Terhune, Meske, Keller, and Andrews are

dismissed from this action, as no claims remain pending against them; 

3. This action shall proceed only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care

claim against Defendants Galaza and Bendon based on the discontinuation of

Plaintiff’s skin treatment plan, retaliation claim against Defendant Van Zant, and

Case 1:02-cv-05646-AWI -SKO Document 72 Filed 03/03/06 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

 Defendant Van Zandt recently waived service of the summons. (Doc. 70.) His response to Plaintiff’s

third amended complaint is due on or before April 10, 2006.

4

due process, equal protection, and retaliation claims against Defendant Drew; and

4. Defendants Drew, Galaza, and Bendon shall file a response to Plaintiff’s third

amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05646-AWI -SKO Document 72 Filed 03/03/06 Page 4 of 4