Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00286/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00286-5/pdf.json

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

---

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

 Plaintiff’s first motion was denied without prejudice by order filed June 5, 2006. 1

 The second and third causes of action were dismissed by stipulation and order filed July 2

13, 2006.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES MATHEWS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0286 GEB JFM P

vs.

COUNTY OF BUTTE, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is an individual proceeding through counsel with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s second, third and

fourth motions for injunctive relief, filed June 27, 2006, July 17, 2006, and July 20, 2006,

respectively. On August 7, 2006, this court heard oral argument on the motions. Ellen Dove, 1

Esq., appeared as counsel for plaintiff. Nathan Austin, Esq., appeared as counsel for defendants. 

This action is proceeding on the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh causes of

action in plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed June 26, 2006. Therein, plaintiff claims 2

violations of his constitutional rights through, inter alia, use of excessive force, inadequate

Case 2:06-cv-00286-GEB -JFM Document 35 Filed 09/29/06 Page 1 of 3
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

medical, mental health and dental care, retaliation, and failure to protect plaintiff from attacks by

other inmates during periods of incarceration at the Butte County Jail, including a period of

incarceration that commenced in October 2004 pursuant to ongoing criminal proceedings against

plaintiff and has continued periodically to the present. During portions of this period plaintiff

has also been at Napa State Hospital pursuant to competency proceedings that are part of the

ongoing state criminal prosecution of plaintiff in Butte County. Plaintiff also claims a violation

of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as intentional and/or negligent

infliction of emotional distress. 

By the instant motions, plaintiff seeks an order requiring officials with the Butte

County Sheriff’s Department “to take him to an appropriate medical facility to treat his active

medical and psychiatric issues.” (Application for Injunctive Order, filed June 27, 2006, at 1.) 

The motions are predicated on plaintiff’s contention that his treatment at the Butte County Jail is

inhumane in several respects. In the reply brief filed in support of the motions, plaintiff

represents that he filed a motion similar to the instant motions in the Butte County Superior

Court. (Reply to Defendants’ Opposition to Injunctive Order, filed July 31, 2006, at 2.) It is

unclear when that motion was filed, or whether it has been heard in the state court. It is clear,

however, that it was not served on counsel for defendants in this case. (Id.) Also in the reply

brief, plaintiff represents that on July 19, 2006, the Butte County Superior Court found plaintiff

incompetent to stand trial. (Id.) On August 16, 2006, the state superior court again ordered

plaintiff committed to Napa State Hospital. (Supplemental Declaration of Nathan W. Austin,

filed August 18, 2006, at ¶ 2, and Ex. A.) On August 18, 2006, counsel for defendants

represented that the Butte County Jail was “making every effort to ensure that [plaintiff] is

transferred within days.” (Id. at ¶ 2.) 

As this court noted in findings and recommendations filed May 3, 2006 on

plaintiff’s first motion for injunctive relief, there are significant constraints on the exercise of

federal court jurisdiction over matters that implicate ongoing state criminal proceedings. See

Case 2:06-cv-00286-GEB -JFM Document 35 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 3
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

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). It is plain from the record before this court that ongoing

issues related to plaintiff’s housing are intertwined with matters at issue in the criminal

proceedings pending against plaintiff in the Butte County Superior Court. Neither the record

before this court nor applicable legal principles support issuance by this federal court of an order

concerning plaintiff’s housing placement at this time. Such an order would constitute

unwarranted interference with the ongoing state proceedings and should not be issued at this

time. 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s

June 27, 2006, July 17, 2006 and July 20, 2006 motions for injunctive relief be denied. 

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 ten 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.” 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 29, 2006.

12

math0286.tro3

Case 2:06-cv-00286-GEB -JFM Document 35 Filed 09/29/06 Page 3 of 3