Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01703/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01703-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Louis Tamale,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-1703 LKK PAN PS

vs.

State of California, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 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 General Order No. 262.

July 25, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Defendants and plaintiff

have filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, 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 in part.

Case 2:02-cv-01703-LKK -PAN Document 65 Filed 09/01/05 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

2

Good cause appearing, the court hereby orders that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 25, 2005, are adopted in part.

2. Defendants California Department of Corrections, Avenal State Prison , the

State of California/American Psychiatric Association, Solano State Prison, and Warden, Avenal

State Prison were never approved for service and have not been served. Claims against them are

dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

3. The November 24, 2004, motion to dismiss by defendants Lambert, Wilson,

Mitchell, Depner, Summers, Tamayo, Alexander, Sisto, Fortin, Huskey, Douglas and Davis is

denied and these defendants shall answer plaintiff’s pleading within 20 days.

4. Arguments raised in defendants’ August 10, 2005, objections concerning the

statute of limitations, Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) and Edwards v. Balisok,

520 U.S. 641, 644-48 (1997) must be raised in a motion which gives plaintiff the opportunity to

oppose them.

DATED: August 31, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:02-cv-01703-LKK -PAN Document 65 Filed 09/01/05 Page 2 of 2