Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02397/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02397-2/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

RICKY HAMMONDS, No. CIV S-06-2397-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

M. MARTEL, 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 complaint (Doc. 1), filed on October

31, 2006. 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 names as defendants Martel, Malfi, Dunlap, Vance, Vasquez, Grannis,

Vanderstein, and Kim. Plaintiff alleges that, in August 2005, his custody status was reviewed by

a prison committee and that his custody status was changed to “E.O.P.,” which plaintiff

describes as “mentally ill out-patient custody.” According to plaintiff, this change in custody

status was based on a psychological evaluation performed by prison medical clinicians. Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-02397-CMK Document 8 Filed 01/30/07 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

2

states that prison staff “. . . specifically told the mental health staff that they were loosing [sic]

money due to their evaluation as to my mental state of mind when housed with cell mates.” 

Plaintiff adds: “So, to give merit to their evaluation, clinical psychologists made me E.O.P. and

sent me to C.S.P. Sacramento to the psychiatric [secured housing unit] where I was again singlecelled for 7 months.” As to the defendants named in this action, plaintiff states: “The defendants

in this petition acted on 4-17-06 to remove me from single cell status without reading the

enclosed exhibits in this suit.” According to plaintiff, the “enclosed exhibits” show that his

mental disease is “a factor,” presumably in the classification determination, and that he has a

history of violent behavior “. . . when stressed and during confrontationary [sic] situations.” . 

After reciting difficulties with presenting grievances concerning his removal from

single-cell status, plaintiff states: “I have had 5 different cell mates. . . In cell fights. Period on 2

occasions where I’ve been without a cell mate for weeks. So, the relief I request is as follows:

Due to denial of medical care – deliberate indifference, because defendants in this matter

deliberately ignored all relevant paperwork, and my fears that I related to clinicians & doctors

and by overtly threatening me by saying they were loosing [sic] money and needed the bed

space.” Plaintiff alleges: “I am placed in the position of, keep getting cell mates and keep

getting into violent confrontations where I’ve been hurt, whereby if I report them, I will be

labled [sic] and targeted for retaliation for snitching. . .” 

Plaintiff claims that “. . . the defendants have ignored all relevant documents,

have not given petitioner further evaluations at Level 1 and Level 2 responses to even try to find

out if petitioner is mentally fit to double cell.” He states that defendants Martel, Dunlap, and

Vance “were all involved in the decision to double-cell petitioner, disregarding relevant

documentation.” Plaintiff alleges that defendant Vasquez “offered no relevant documentation to

validify [sic] committee’s [custody] decision.” As to defendant Vanderstein – who was

plaintiff’s clinician – plaintiff states that she “made no chrono available to the doctor (Vasquez)

or committee even though, weekly, I voiced my weekly problems of cell fights and paranoia as

Case 2:06-cv-02397-CMK Document 8 Filed 01/30/07 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

The court notes that, according to plaintiff’s complaint, plaintiff has not 1

exhausted his administrative remedies. However, because exhaustion is not a jurisdictional

requirement for bringing suit, see Rumbles v. Hill, 182 F.3d 1064, 1070 (9th Cir. 1999), and

because failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense which can only be raised by defendants, see

Wyatt v. Terhune, 280 F.3d 1238, 1245-46 (9th Cir. 2002), dismissal at this time for failure to

exhaust is not appropriate. 

3

to my cell mates I started getting once I was certified to double cell.” Plaintiff claims that

defendant Kim “stated that he and other doctors were no longer allowed to write chronos for

inmates who fit criteria for single celled.” Plaintiff states that defendant Grannis, as the Chief

Appeal Coordinator, “either through deliberate actions or incompetence, sent back to me my

[inmate grievance].” 

For relief, plaintiff seeks, among other things, an order directing defendants to

place him back on single-cell status. 

The gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint is that defendants were deliberately

indifferent to risks to his safety posed by being housed with a cell mate. Specifically, plaintiff

claims that defendants ignored available documentation of his mental illness and the need to be

housed alone due to his inability to cope with cell mates. The complaint appears to state a

cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the 1

allegations are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the 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. Plaintiff is informed, however, 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. Service is appropriate for the following defendant(s): 

MARTEL, 

MALFI, 

DUNLAP, 

Case 2:06-cv-02397-CMK Document 8 Filed 01/30/07 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

VANCE, 

VASQUEZ, 

GRANNIS, 

VANDERSTEIN, and

KIM;

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

defendant identified above (eight forms), one summons, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the

complaint; 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;

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

d. Nine copies of the endorsed complaint.

DATED: January 25, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02397-CMK Document 8 Filed 01/30/07 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

RICKY HAMMONDS, No. CIV S-06-2397-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs.

M. MARTEL, 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 complaint.

DATED: __________________ ____________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-02397-CMK Document 8 Filed 01/30/07 Page 5 of 5