Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01567/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01567-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WILLIAM JACKSON KITCHENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

PIERCE, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05-01567 AWI LJO P 

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS ISSUED MARCH 6,

2006. (Doc. 10.) 

 William Jackson Kitchens (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 5, 2005, in the Sacramento Division of the

Eastern District of California. The case was transferred to this Court anc received on December

9, 2005. 

On March 6, 2006, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the action

based on Plaintiff’s concession that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies. However,

Plaintiff, on March 14, 2006, filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations contending

he was not a prisoner within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). 

In Page v. Torrey, the Ninth Circuit held that civil detainees were not prisoners within the

Case 1:05-cv-01567-DCB Document 12 Filed 06/21/06 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

27

28

1The Court expressed no opinion as to the merits of Page’s claims or other possible bases on which the

Complaint could be dismissed. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d at 1140, fn. 8.

2

meaning of the PLRA. As a result, the filing requirements pertaining to applications to proceed

in forma pauperis filed by such detainees was inapplicable. The Ninth Circuit also indirectly

held that the exhaustion of administrative remedies required under the PLRA also did not apply

to civil detainees.

1

 In light of this holding, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued March 6, 2006, are VACATED (Doc.

10.) 

The Court will proceed with its screening of the case in due course. Plaintiff should keep

the Court apprised of his current address so as to receive all documents issued or filed relating to

his case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01567-DCB Document 12 Filed 06/21/06 Page 2 of 2