Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-223/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The case remains pending against other defendants.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C01-1351 TEH

ORDER STAYING MOTION BY

DONDI VAN HORN FOR

LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT

AGAINST RECEIVERS

On July 2, 2009, Dondi Van Horn, a former prisoner, filed a motion for leave to file a

complaint against Receiver J. Clark Kelso and his predecessor, Robert Sillen, based on a

claim for deliberate indifference pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Van Horn and the Receiver

subsequently stipulated to have the motion heard on August 31, 2009. With good cause

appearing for the reasons discussed below, this Court now VACATES the motion hearing

and STAYS consideration of Van Horn’s motion pending resolution of two cases currently

before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Van Horn initially filed suit against the Receivers and various other defendants in the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. On January 28, 2009,

Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill granted the Receivers’ motion to dismiss because Van Horn

failed to obtain leave of this Court to sue the Receivers.1

 Van Horn v. Hornbeak Order on

Receiver Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss (Ex. B to Ernst Decl.). The court based its ruling in part on

the conclusion that the lawsuit “challenges the Receivers’ conduct in performing the very

duties Judge Henderson created the receivership to accomplish” and not “tortious conduct or

negligent acts pursuant to ordinary business operations unrelated to the Receivers’ official

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2204 Filed 08/12/09 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Court does not decide at this time whether, assuming Van Horn’s dichotomy is

correct, the allegations at issue in the proposed complaint would fall on the side of “day-today operations” or “high-level operational functions.”

2

responsibilities.” Id. at 6-7. Van Horn’s appeal of the order dismissing the Receivers is

currently pending before the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision on Van Horn’s appeal may be dispositive of the instant

motion. In her moving papers, Van Horn agrees that the Receiver is entitled to immunity

when he “performs actions within the ambit of his judicial-prescribed duties,” including

“high-level operational” or “managerial functions,” as opposed to “oversight of the day-today delivery of medical services within the prison system.” Mot. at 12-14.2

 If the Ninth

Circuit affirms the order dismissing the Receivers and agrees that Van Horn’s allegations are

based on the Receivers’ conduct “within the ambit of [their] judicial-prescribed duties,” then

the Receivers would be immune from Van Horn’s proposed suit based on Van Horn’s own

interpretation of the law. Alternatively, if the Ninth Circuit reverses the order dismissing the

Receivers, then Van Horn could proceed against the Receivers in the Eastern District of

California and her motion for leave to sue the Receivers in this Court would become moot.

Another case involving a request for leave to sue the Receiver is also currently

pending before the Ninth Circuit. In that case, Medical Development International (“MDI”)

v. CDCR, MDI sought leave to sue the Receiver on a breach-of-contract theory. Although

Van Horn’s claims based on allegations of deliberate indifference are distinguishable from

MDI’s contract claims, the Ninth Circuit’s decision may nevertheless help define the scope

of the Receivers’ immunity.

In light of both of the above pending appeals, this Court finds it prudent and efficient

to stay resolution of Van Horn’s motion until after both appeals have been decided. Once

those decisions have become final, Van Horn and the Receiver shall meet and confer and file

a joint statement with the Court proposing a supplemental briefing schedule in light of the

appellate decisions. In the meantime, the Court encourages Van Horn and the Receiver to

discuss whether, as the Receiver’s counsel has declared under penalty of perjury, the

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2204 Filed 08/12/09 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Receivers actually adopted the policy Van Horn alleges they failed to adopt, see Exs. 2a &

2b to Dodd Decl., and, if so, whether Van Horn’s proposed complaint against the Receivers

remains viable.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 08/12/09 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2204 Filed 08/12/09 Page 3 of 3