Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00473/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00473-6/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

James D. Maciel,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 02-0473 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

Ana Ramirez Palmer, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in

this civil rights action, was incarcerated at California Medical

Facilty (CMF) from 1995 until he was transferred to High Desert

State Prison (HDSP) in September 2001. In October of 2003,

plaintiff was transferred to Pleasant Valley State Prison in

Coalinga.

In his March 6, 2002, complaint plaintiff alleges he has

been diagnosed with cancer and pulmonary disease, prison

officials fail to enforce no-smoking policies, he has been 

Case 2:02-cv-00473-MCE -PAN Document 104 Filed 02/16/06 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

involuntarily exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) since

becoming a state prisoner in 1986, and defendants have

consciously disregarded the serious risk of future harm to

plaintiff’s health. Plaintiff seeks damages. 

January 18, 2005, defendants moved for leave to conduct a

medical physical examination of plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 35(a). Plaintiff opposed in part, asking that the court

order such examination take place at his prison, to alleviate

peril to his fragile health from transporting him to another

location. 

By order of April 13, 2005, the court denied the motion for

a medical examination without prejudice. The court invited

defendants to renew their motion, imposing two provisos. First,

a new motion should specify the “time, place, manner, conditions,

and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it

is to be made.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a). Second, it should

explain why the requested examination cannot be made at

plaintiff’s prison and, if so, suggest appropriate provision for

any legitimate concern for plaintiff’s health and safety that

could be created by transporting him to another location for the

examination.

June 17, 2005, defendants renewed their motion for a medical

examination. The renewed motion satisfies the first proviso,

indicating what the medical physical examination would entail

(viz., pulmonary function tests) and its time, place and manner. 

The motion fails to meet the second proviso, however, because it

Case 2:02-cv-00473-MCE -PAN Document 104 Filed 02/16/06 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

proposes the testing be conducted in Fresno, California but does

not address testing at PVSP is unfeasible. Nor does it propose

arrangements to ensure the transportation and testing will be

conducted in the safest, least burdensome manner. 

Accordingly, defendants’ June 16, 2005, motion for medical

physical examination is denied, again without prejudice. 

Defendants may renew their motion, explaining why the testing

cannot be accomplished at PVSP and if so, proposing a schedule

for moving plaintiff, housing him if necessary, and returning him

to his cell at PVSP in order to minimize any danger to

plaintiff’s health. To simplify scheduling, defendants may

propose a period of two weeks during which the testing will be

accomplished, but they must explain how long plaintiff will be

away from PVSP and where he will be housed if he cannot be

transported and returned in a single day. 

So ordered.

Dated: February 14, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:02-cv-00473-MCE -PAN Document 104 Filed 02/16/06 Page 3 of 3