Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02732/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02732-11/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

MALIK JONES, No. CIV S-06-2732-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

C. STIEFERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. 28),

filed on February 1, 2008. The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners

seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment

rights have been violated. Specifically he claims that defendants Shoemaker, Stieferman,

Holmes, and Casero were deliberately indifferent to his mental health needs and defendants

Stiles and Kelley have interfered with his mental health needs. He alleges these defendants did

not abide by a medical report which indicated he required a single cell. He alleges that

Case 2:06-cv-02732-KJM-CMK Document 32 Filed 06/18/08 Page 1 of 5
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

The court notes that, according to plaintiff’s amended complaint, plaintiff claims 1

arose between 1999 and 2001. Therefore, it appears to the court that the statute of limitations

may have run on plaintiff’s claims. However, because the statute of limitations is an affirmative

defense, dismissal at this time is not appropriate. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117-18

(9th Cir. 2003).

2

defendants Holmes, Stieferman, Hayward, Shoemaker, Stiles, Martel, Casero, Vance, Rosario,

and Chastain retaliated against him by placing or keeping plaintiff in administrative segregation,

and that defendants Rosario and Chastain retaliated against him by transferring him to a different

institution. He states defendants Rudolph and Goldman used or wrote false reports and

documents against him, again in retaliation, and that defendant Rudolph used excessive force

against him by pushing him off his crutches. Plaintiff claims defendant Cambine gave him

incorrect psychotropic medication. He claims unnamed DOE defendants assaulted him in his

cell and that defendant Sherven used excessive force by firing a block gun in the yard which hit

plaintiff. He alleges defendant Johnson then failed to treat his injuries. He alleges defendant

Churray has verbally harassed him and defendant Sunders put him on strip cell status. Finally, he

alleges defendants Kimbrell and Rianda refused to process his appeal and defendant Pliler failed

to correct the behavior of her subordinates after being informed of the violations they were

inflicting.

In findings and recommendations issued concurrently with this order, the

undersigned has found plaintiff has failed to state a claim as against defendants Cambine,

Churray, Kimbrell and Rianda. However, his first amended complaint, read liberally as the court

must, appears to state a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b), as against defendants Shoemaker, Stieferman, Holmes, Casero, Stiles, Kelly,

Hayward, Martel, Vance, Rosario, Chastain, Rudolph, Goldman, Sherven, Johnson, Sunders and

Pliler. If the allegations are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the 1

merits of this action. The court, therefore, finds that service is appropriate and will direct service

by the U.S. Marshal without pre-payment of costs. 

Case 2:06-cv-02732-KJM-CMK Document 32 Filed 06/18/08 Page 2 of 5
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 complaint also identifies several DOE defendants. The court cannot

order service of process upon fictitious defendants. Upon discovering the names of the

defendants, plaintiff must promptly file a motion for leave to amend, accompanied by a proposed

second amended complaint identifying the additional defendants. Plaintiff is cautioned that

undue delay in discovering the defendants’ names and seeking leave to amend may result in the

denial of leave to proceed against these defendants. 

Plaintiff is informed that this action cannot proceed further until plaintiff complies

with this order. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal

of the action. See Local Rule 11-110. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court authorizes service on the following defendant(s): 

Shoemaker, Stieferman, Holmes, Casero, Stiles, Kelley, Hayward,

Martel, Vance, Rosario, Chastain, Rudolph, Goldman, Sherven,

Johnson, Sunders and Pliler.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form for each

defendant identified above, one summons, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the first amended

complaint filed February 1, 2008; and

3. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall complete

the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the

court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-02732-KJM-CMK Document 32 Filed 06/18/08 Page 3 of 5
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

c. 17 completed USM-285 form(s); and

d. 18 copies of the endorsed firs amended complaint filed February 1,

2008. 

DATED: June 17, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02732-KJM-CMK Document 32 Filed 06/18/08 Page 4 of 5
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MALIK JONES, No. CIV S-06-2732-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

C. STIEFERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order:

 1 completed summons form;

 completed USM-285 form(s); and

 copies of the first amended complaint filed on February 1, 2008.

DATED: __________________ ____________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-02732-KJM-CMK Document 32 Filed 06/18/08 Page 5 of 5