Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02647/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02647-6/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

EUGENIO PEJI,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 13-cv-2647 KJM KJN P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is the July 29, 2014 motion filed on behalf of 

defendants Rading and Clark to require plaintiff to file an amended complaint containing 

numbered paragraphs as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b). (ECF No. 25.) For 

the following reasons, the undersigned recommends that this motion be denied.1

Background

This action is proceeding on the original complaint against defendants Rading, Clark and 

Dhillon. (ECF No.1.) On May 5, 2013, defendant Dhillon filed an answer to the complaint. 

(ECF No. 20.) 

////

 

1

 Plaintiff has not opposed defendants’ motion. However, because defendants’ motion lacks 

merit, the undersigned recommends that it be denied. 

Case 2:13-cv-02647-KJM-KJN Document 30 Filed 09/17/14 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

All defendants are employed at the California Medical Facility (“CMF”). (ECF No. 1 at 

2.) Defendant Dhillon is plaintiff’s primary care provider at CMF. (Id.) Defendant Rading is the 

Chief Physician and Surgeon at CMF. (Id.) Defendant Clark is the Chief Executive Officer at 

CMF. (Id.) 

Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from leukemia, end stage liver disease, hepatitis C, 

“esophageal varcibs,” diabetes, hypertension, neuropathy and asthma. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges 

that on or before April 12, 2013, he informed defendants that he was experiencing ongoing 

tremendous pain due to his many ailments. (Id. at 4: 1-6.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Dhillon 

determined that plaintiff would be treated with amitriptyline, an anti-depressant. (Id. at 4: 7-10.) 

Plaintiff alleges that on May 30, 2013, defendant Clark determined that plaintiff’s care 

was consistent with “’the World Health Organization’s pain management ladder...’ as such the 

pain management would not be advanced.” (Id. at 4: 17-24.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant 

Clark refused to provide plaintiff with “pain management” at the level of care he needed. (Id. at 

4: 25-28.) Plaintiff alleges that the World Health Organization’s pain management ladder does 

not address all of the conditions from which he suffers. (Id. at 4: 27-28; 5:1-4.) Plaintiff alleges 

that his neuropathy and end stage liver disease coupled with his other ailments makes for a very 

painful and uncomfortable existence. (Id. at 5: 4-7.)

Plaintiff alleges that on May 10, 2013, defendant Rading determined that that the antidepressant, amitriptyline, would best serve plaintiff. (Id. at 5: 8-15.) 

Plaintiff alleges that he is being denied adequate pain management. (Id. at 5: 23-27.)

Plaintiff also alleges that defendants’ lack of medical care caused plaintiff to be 

inappropriately housed at California State Prison-Solano (“Solano”). (Id. at 9: 1-11.) Plaintiff 

alleges that the central health facility at Solano is approximately one quarter mile from plaintiff’s 

housing. (Id. at 9: 10-12.) Plaintiff alleges that while housed at Solano, he had two life 

threatening episodes which could have been avoided had he been properly housed. (Id. at 9:16-

26.) 

////

////

Case 2:13-cv-02647-KJM-KJN Document 30 Filed 09/17/14 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

Discussion

Defendants Rading and Clark move to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint on grounds that it 

does not contain numbered paragraphs as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b). 

Defendants Rading and Clark argue that without numbered paragraphs, their ability to respond to 

plaintiff’s allegations is difficult, if not impossible. 

Courts must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 

342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 

89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). Courts must treat pro se litigants with great leniency when 

evaluating compliance with the technical rules of civil procedures. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 

1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986).) 

Defendants are correct that plaintiff’s complaint does not contain numbered paragraphs, as

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b). However, despite lacking numbered 

paragraphs, plaintiff’s claims against defendant Rading and Clark are identifiable.2 The 

undersigned has above identified those claims, with reference to the page and line numbers, as the 

pages of plaintiff’s complaint are numbered. 

Because plaintiff’s claims against defendants Rading and Clark are identifiable, plaintiff’s 

failure to comply with the technical requirement of Rule 10(b) that his complaint contain 

numbered paragraphs, is excused.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion to require 

plaintiff to file an amended complaint containing numbered paragraphs (ECF No. 25) be denied; 

and defendants Rading and Clark be ordered to file a response to the complaint within twenty 

days of the adoption of these findings and recommendations. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

 

2

 Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Rading and Clark are as identifiable as those against 

defendant Dhillon. As noted above, defendant Dhillon filed an answer. For these reasons, the 

pending motion is somewhat puzzling. 

Case 2:13-cv-02647-KJM-KJN Document 30 Filed 09/17/14 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

4

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: September 16, 2014

Pej2647.57

Case 2:13-cv-02647-KJM-KJN Document 30 Filed 09/17/14 Page 4 of 4