Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00751/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00751-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 00:0000 Cause Code Unknown

---

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

LOUIS TAMALE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-0751 WBS PAN PS

vs.

CALIFORNIA STATE, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that several defendants violated his constitutional

rights during a period while he was incarcerated at California State Prison-Solano. On March 28,

2005, one of those defendants, Dr. Vong, filed a motion to dismiss this action pursuant to the

unenumerated portion of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative

remedies prior to suit and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted as to Dr. Vong. Plaintiff opposed the motion. 

On February 10, 2006, findings and recommendations were issued recommending

that the motion be denied. In relevant part, the magistrate judge recommended that defendant

Vong’s request for dismissal due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies be

denied on the ground that plaintiff had been released from custody and, therefore, there were no

Case 2:02-cv-00751-WBS-PAN Document 111 Filed 03/30/06 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

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 1

803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

2

administrative remedies available to plaintiff. On March 6, 2006, the district court remanded the

matter “for further consideration of why plaintiff should be excused from the exhaustion

requirement by virtue of his having been released from custody if, as stated twice in the

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, he was not released until after he filed this

lawsuit.” (Order filed March 6, 2006, at 1-2.)

In findings and recommendations filed in this action on February 10, 2006, the

magistrate judge found that “plaintiff was released from custody in July 2002, shortly after

commencing this action.” (Findings and Recommendations, filed February 10, 2006, at 3.) For

the reasons set forth infra, this court finds that plaintiff was actually released from custody in July

2001.

Court records reflect that plaintiff filed another civil rights action, Tamale v.

Davis, No. CIV S-00-0644 WBS DAD P, raising the same claims as are raised in the instant

action. At the time plaintiff filed that action he was incarcerated. (See, e.g., Tamale v. Davis,

1

No. CIV S-00-0644, docket entries # 7 and 8.) On June 5, 2000, plaintiff filed a notice of change

of address in that action, notifying the court that he had been transferred to Avenal State Prison. 

(Id. at docket entry # 16.) On August 9, 2001, the magistrate judge issued findings and

recommendations in that action which were served on plaintiff but returned undelivered. (Id. at

docket entries # 64 and 65.) On October 17, 2001, plaintiff filed therein a notice of change of

address, changing his address to 401 South Hoover # 217, Los Angeles, CA 90020. (Id. at

docket entry # 72.) That address is identical to the address on the complaint filed by plaintiff to

initiate this action. (See Complaint, received January 29, 2002 and filed April 2, 2002.)

In his opposition to defendant Vong’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff represents that

he was paroled from Avenal State Prison on July 7 , “@))!”. It appears that the year in the th

foregoing date was typed with the shift key held down or locked; without the action of the shift

Case 2:02-cv-00751-WBS-PAN Document 111 Filed 03/30/06 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

 This finding is based on the determination that a computer or electronic typewriter 2

keyboard has an “@” sharing a key with the number 2, a “)” sharing the key with the number “0",

and a “!” sharing the key with the number 1. The “@”, “)” and “!” are all typed by engaging the

capitalization mechanism and then striking the respective keys. Earlier keyboards typically did

not have the ! key. Instead they used the l key and the . key.

 The record in this action also reflects that the case was opened in accordance with 3

procedures for cases filed by pro se litigants who are not incarcerated, and that plaintiff

represented on his in forma pauperis application, filed March 22, 2002, that he was not

incarcerated.

 If the actual date differs from this finding any party is invited to offer proof in 4

objections to these findings and recommendations. 

3

key the year would most likely read “2001". A parole release date of July 7, 2001 would be in 2

accord with the return of mail sent to plaintiff in August 2001.3

For the foregoing reasons, this court finds it most likely that plaintiff was released

from prison in July 2001. It appears that plaintiff’s original complaint was received in this court 4

on January 29, 2002 and opened as a civil action on April 2, 2002. Section 1997e(a) of

Title 42 of the United States Code provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to

prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined

in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are

available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). For purposes of this section, a prisoner is “any

person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or

adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law . . .” (Emphasis added.) 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(h). 

 Plaintiff was not a “prisoner” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §1997e at the time

he filed this action, nor was he confined in any correctional facility at that time. The exhaustion

requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) applies only to “a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or

other correctional facility.” It does not, therefore, apply to this plaintiff.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant Vong’s March 28, 2005 motion to dismiss be denied; and

Case 2:02-cv-00751-WBS-PAN Document 111 Filed 03/30/06 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

4

2. Defendant Vong be directed to answer the September 20, 2002 amended

complaint within ten days from the date of any order by the district court adopting 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 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: March 29, 2006.

12

tama0751.mtd

Case 2:02-cv-00751-WBS-PAN Document 111 Filed 03/30/06 Page 4 of 4