Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00649/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00649-8/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

Plaintiff also names as defendants Padilla and Hendricks. Defendant Padilla filed 1

an answer to the amended complaint on June 15, 2007. Defendant Hendricks’ motion to dismiss

was denied by the district judge on December 26, 2007. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS KITCHEN, No. CIV S-06-0649-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JOANNE HENDRICKS, 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 defendant Hambly’s motion to dismiss (Doc.

35). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to defendant’s motion. 1

In his motion to dismiss, defendant Hambly raises the same arguments raised by

defendant Hendricks in her motion. Specifically, defendant argues that plaintiff’s instant § 1983

claim is barred by the doctrines of claim preclusion and/or issue preclusion because the matter

was fully litigated in the context of a state court habeas corpus petition. The district judge

Case 2:06-cv-00649-GEB-CMK Document 43 Filed 12/28/07 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

2

rejected this argument. For the reasons stated in the district judge’s December 26, 2007, order,

defendant Hambly’s motion to dismiss should also be denied. 

Defendants Hambly and Hendricks should now be ordered to file an answer to the

first amended complaint, at which point this case will be at issue and a scheduling order can

issue. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Defendant Hambly’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 35) be denied; and

2. Defendants Hambly and Hendricks be required to file an answer. 

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 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 27, 2007

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00649-GEB-CMK Document 43 Filed 12/28/07 Page 2 of 2