Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-05767/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-05767-0/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN ANTHONY FULTON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

E. MADRUGA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

)

)

CV F 97-5767 OWW DLB P

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF

AUGUST 31, 2004 ORDER

(DOC 279)

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. On May 4, 2004, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendations herein recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be

granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended that

Defendants Engler and Phillips be dismissed from this action for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies; that Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants Madruga and Phillips for forcing him to walk

barefoot with a cart of personal property be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies; that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds as to

Defendants Madruga, Black, Espinosa, and Wilkins be denied; and that this action proceed to

trial on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants Madruga, Black

Case 1:97-cv-05767-OWW -DLB Document 297 Filed 05/19/05 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

27

28 2

and Espinosa and Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Wilkins. 

On August 31, 2004, this Court entered an Order re Findings and Recommendation

finding the recommendation to be supported by the record and proper analysis except as to the

total exhaustion of all claims. The Court held that total exhaustion of all of the prisoner’s claims

is required for the reasons stated in Ross v. County of Bernalillo, 365 F.3d 1181, 1190 (10th Cir.

2004). The Court therefore ordered Plaintiff to advise whether he agreed to the dismissal of his

unexhausted claims and wished to proceed on his exhausted claims. On September 15, 2004,

Plaintiff advised that he wished to proceed on his exhausted claims only thereby agreeing to

dismissal of his claims against Defendants Engler and Phillips for excessive force and his claims

against Defendants Madruga and Phillips for forcing him to walk barefoot with a cart of personal

property. 

On November 5, 2004, Defendants filed a Request for Clarification of the Court’s Order. 

Specifically, Defendants requested that the Court clarify its ruling on the other issues raised by

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 220) (such as qualified immunity); and

whether discovery was still stayed under the June 27, 2002 Order (Docket No. 276). 

DISCUSSION

A. Clarification of Court’s Ruling on Qualified Immunity

In the Findings and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended denial of

Defendants’ claims of qualified immunity. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that

Plaintiff’s unexhausted claims be dismissed and the exhausted claim to proceed to trial. This

Court found the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

analysis except as to the total exhaustion of all claims. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds was denied.

B. Stay of December 12, 2001 Discovery Order

Pursuant to this Court’s Order of March 31, 2001, Defendants submitted personnel

documents under seal for in camera review. While the Court was reviewing the documents,

Case 1:97-cv-05767-OWW -DLB Document 297 Filed 05/19/05 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

27

28 3

Defendants requested and were granted leave to file a motion for summary judgment in light of

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) and Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001). On December

3, 2001, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the Complaint should be

dismissed because they were entitled to qualified immunity and Plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies for all claims against all Defendants before bringing this action. On

December 12, 2001, the Court ordered Defendants to produce various inmate complaints and

personnel investigation reports relating to Defendants. On December 20, 2001, Defendants filed

a motion to stay the December 12, 2001 Order for production of documents. On June 27, 2002,

the Court granted Defendants’ request to stay the discovery order finding that a stay was

warranted because until the issue of qualified immunity was resolved, discovery should not go

forward. The Court noted that Plaintiff did not need Defendants’ personnel records to oppose the

motion for summary judgment because personnel records have no bearing on the issues of

qualified immunity.

The issue of qualified immunity has now been resolved. Accordingly, the stay of the

December 12, 2001 discovery order is removed and Defendants are ordered to comply with the

December 12, 2001 Order within 30 days. The Court will thereafter schedule this case for trial. 

The case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:97-cv-05767-OWW -DLB Document 297 Filed 05/19/05 Page 3 of 3