Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02290/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02290-10/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

STEWART MANAGO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2290 LKK KJM P

vs.

BRAD WILLIAMS, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff has several filings before the court: (1) a motion for a preliminary injunction; (2) a

motion for permission to serve the amended complaint; (3) a motion for a special hearing; and

(4) a motion for judicial intervention.

I. Motions for Preliminary Injunction and for Special Hearing

The motion for a preliminary injunction makes two demands: plaintiff seeks an

order requiring the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to transfer

plaintiff to a facility where he “will be able to receive proper mental health treatment” and that

the CDCR be “prohibited ... from transferring plaintiff Manago to other prisons where plaintiff

Manago may be placed into unlawful danger.” Mot. at 1 (Docket No. 23). Plaintiff filed the

motion while housed at California State Prison-Sacramento (CSP-Sac), where he claims he was

Case 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN Document 55 Filed 01/15/10 Page 1 of 6
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

at risk of harm because prison staff were telling other inmates that plaintiff was a “snitch” for

providing testimony against a prison guard accused of misconduct. Mot. ¶¶ 34, 38, 40, 56

(Docket No. 23). He claimed that several correctional officers at CSP-Sac “set [up] conditions

for plaintiff to be forced to defend himself against future attempted assaults and/or murder by

corrupted staff or ... inmates.” Id. ¶ 52. 

Since filing the motion for preliminary injunction, plaintiff has filed a motion for

special hearing that supplements the motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff informs the

court that in October 2009 he was transferred to the California Correctional Institution (CCI) in

Tehachapi, California. See Mot. at 4 (Docket No. 34). The transfer followed an incident at CSPSac, in which plaintiff claims to have been assaulted by fellow inmates and suffered injuries to

his ribs as a result of being kicked by prison staff who responded. Id. at 2. Plaintiff avers,

without providing any evidence, that the assault was a “set up” by prison staff who induced other

inmates to attack plaintiff. Id. at 3. He no longer claims that he is in danger of assault now that

he is housed at CCI. However, he does claim that after the transfer to CCI, he “has been in

serious pain without treatment.” Id. at 4. He further claims that at CCI he still does not receive

proper mental health care. Id.

The legal principles applicable to a request for injunctive relief are well

established. To prevail, the moving party must show either a likelihood of success on the merits

and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are raised and the balance of

hardships tips sharply in the movant’s favor. See Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122

F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir. 1997); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374,

1376 (9th Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale with the focal

point being the degree of irreparable injury shown. Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. “Under

any formulation of the test, plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of

irreparable injury.” Id. In the absence of a significant showing of possible irreparable harm, the

court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. Id. 

Case 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN Document 55 Filed 01/15/10 Page 2 of 6
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

3

Plaintiff’s transfer to CCI moots his original request that this court order him

moved to another facility. Insofar as plaintiff demands an injunction ordering transfer out of

CSP-Sac because he is in imminent danger of reprisal for being labeled a “snitch,” plaintiff does

not recast his allegation to state that prison staff at CCI have continued to put him in the

“unlawful danger” that allegedly existed at CSP-Sac. Furthermore, plaintiff has not made a

showing that the mental health treatment he receives at CCI puts him at significant risk of

irreparable injury. Plaintiff states in his original motion that he has been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder and paranoid schizophrenia, and that he has been prescribed lithium and

Zyprexa, but he does not specify what additional treatment he believes he should receive for

these conditions. See Mot. ¶¶ 1, 5 (Docket No. 23). There is no evidence before the court that

the only remedy for undefined deficiencies in his mental health care treatment would be yet

another transfer to another prison facility. Therefore his request for an order of transfer should be

denied.

As for plaintiff’s statement that he has not been treated for injuries he received in

the alleged assault at CSP-Sac, plaintiff makes that allegation as part of his request for a “special

hearing,” not as part of his motion for a preliminary injunction. Moreover, plaintiff does not

allege that the defendants named in this action had any involvement in the treatment of injuries

that allegedly stemmed from an assault by plaintiff’s fellow inmates or from prison officials’

attempts to stop the assault. Nonetheless, the allegation that plaintiff’s injuries have not been

treated is sufficiently serious, if true, such that the court construes it as a request for additional

injunctive relief that requires a prompt response. Therefore the court will order the California

Attorney General’s office, as general counsel for the CDCR, to file a response to the allegation

that plaintiff’s rib injuries have not been treated. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651. 

For the foregoing reasons, the court will recommend that the motion for a

preliminary injunction, in which plaintiff requests a transfer to another prison facility, be denied

as moot. The court will hold review on the motion for a special hearing in abeyance until it

Case 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN Document 55 Filed 01/15/10 Page 3 of 6
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

4

receives a response concerning the treatment of plaintiff’s injuries.

II. Motion to Serve Amended Complaint

Plaintiff asks the court for three additional USM-285 forms so that plaintiff may

serve three defendants (Knowles, Stiles and Kennedy) who were named in the amended

complaint but were not included in the court’s screening order of July 13, 2009. This request is

not well taken. In issuing the screening order, the court executed its duty under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A to deny service of process on defendants against whom the complaint states no specific

cause of action. The court found that plaintiff had adequately stated a cause of action against

most of the defendants named in the amended complaint and ordered service upon them. 

However, in omitting Knowles, Stiles and Kennedy from the screening order, the court implicitly

found that the averments of the amended complaint were too vague to allow service against

them. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair

notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev.

Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of

particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's claim. Id.; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Plaintiff failed to meet this requirement with respect to Knowles, Stiles and

Kennedy; therefore the court did not order service upon them. There is no cause to order service

on them now. Plaintiff’s motion for permission to serve the amended complaint will be denied.

III. Motion for Judicial Intervention

Plaintiff has filed a motion for judicial intervention, seeking the court’s assistance

in locating the current mailing address for defendant W.S. Lafitte. On December 12, 2009, the

U.S. Marshal filed a return of service stating that the summons could not be executed as to

Lafitte. See Docket No. 43. A handwritten note on the return, dated November 20, 2009, states

“no longer at address.” Id. In his motion, plaintiff states that he provided the address where

Lafitte lived “before getting arrested for selling drugs to inmates at CSP-Sacramento in 2006.” 

Mot. at 4 (Docket No. 49). The return filed by the Marshal contains a typed but undated note

Case 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN Document 55 Filed 01/15/10 Page 4 of 6
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

5

stating “this Defendant is/was serving time within CDCR, and may be on parole.” Docket No.

43. 

In his motion, plaintiff states that he requested information about Lafitte from the

warden and litigation coordinator at CSP-Sac, but those officers withheld the information, citing

exceptions under the California Public Records Act, Calif. Gov’t. Code § 6250, et seq. See Mot.

at 6 (Docket No. 49). Plaintiff names Linda Young and James Walker as the prison officials who

withheld the requested information. Neither of them is named as a defendant in this action, and

presumably the named defendants are not privy to or authorized to provide Lafitte’s current

address. Under the present circumstances, without reaching the question of applicability of the

California Public Records Act, the court finds that plaintiff should be provided defendant

Lafitte’s current mailing address, if it is in CDCR’s possession, solely for the purpose of

effecting service on Lafitte in this action. Therefore the court will request that the California

Attorney General’s office, as general counsel for CDCR, inform plaintiff and the court of W.S.

Lafitte’s current mailing address, if it is known to CDCR. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The motion to serve the amended complaint (Docket No. 26) is denied;

2. CDCR will file a response to the allegation that plaintiff’s injuries are not

being treated, as alleged in his motion for special hearing (Docket No. 34), no later than five days

after the date of this order; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on Monica

Anderson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General. 

FURTHERMORE, the court requests that, within ten days of the date of this

order, CDCR provide the court and plaintiff with the current mailing address of W.S. Lafitte, if it

is on record with CDCR. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the motion for a preliminary injunction

(Docket No. 23) be denied as moot.

Case 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN Document 55 Filed 01/15/10 Page 5 of 6
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

6

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 twentyone days 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 reply to the objections

shall be served and filed 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: January 14, 2010. 

4

mana2290.48.ord

Case 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN Document 55 Filed 01/15/10 Page 6 of 6