Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00444/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00444-20/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. SHAEFER, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:11-cv-00444-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING

DISMISSAL OF ACTION, WITH 

PREJUDICE, AS BARRED BY CLAIM 

AND/OR ISSUE PRECLUSION

ORDER VACATING CROSS-MOTIONS 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FROM 

COURT=S CALENDAR 

(Docs. 94, 104, and 118)

Defendants’ Response Deadline: 30 days

Plaintiff’s Response Deadline: 30 days from date of 

service of Defendants’ response

Plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 17, 2011. This action is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint against Defendants Schaefer, Lopez, Keldgord, 

Harrington, and Flynn arising out of the policy and practice of crushing and floating Gabapentin 

and Tramadol, which allegedly caused internal injury to Plaintiff, including severe erosive 

esophagitis and esophageal hemorrhaging. Plaintiff alleges a claim for violation of his rights 

under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Following a recent review of its docket, the Court became aware that in December 2010, 

Plaintiff filed suit against Harrington, Lopez, and Schaefer, along with Matthew Cate and J. Clark 

Case 1:11-cv-00444-AWI-SKO Document 125 Filed 02/04/15 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

Kelso, in the Superior Court of Kern County.1 In that suit, Plaintiff challenged the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s policy of crushing and floating of Gabapentin and 

Tramadol in water, a method which he alleged caused severe erosive esophagitis and esophageal 

hemorrhaging; and it appears that adverse merits-based determinations in that case bar Plaintiff 

from proceeding with this action. Gonzales v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 739 F.3d 1226,

1231-33 (9th Cir. 2014). Therefore, the parties shall fully brief whether this action is subject to 

dismissal, with prejudice, as a result of claim and/or issue preclusion. Id.

At this stage in the proceedings, there are pending cross-motions for summary judgment on 

the issue of exhaustion which may necessitate an evidentiary hearing. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 56(c); Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), cert. denied, 135 

S.Ct. 403 (2014). Because the exhaustion issue will be rendered moot if this action is barred by 

claim and/or issue preclusion, the parties’ cross-motions shall be deemed vacated from the Court’s 

calendar pending further order. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. The parties are ordered to show cause on the issue of claim and/or issue preclusion 

in light of the state court’s judgments in Bryant v. Harrington as follows:

a. Defendants shall file a response to the order to show cause within thirty 

(30) days from the date of service of this order;

b. Plaintiff shall show cause within thirty (30) days from the date of service 

of Defendants’ response; and

c. No further briefing will be permitted absent leave of court and 

unauthorized briefs will be stricken from the record; and

///

///

///

 

1 The Court takes judicial notice of the docket in Bryant v. Apotex, Inc., et al., 1:12-cv-01377-LJO-JLT (E.D.Cal.) and 

the decision in Bryant v. Harrington, No. F067290, 2014 WL 5392967 (Cal.Ct.App. 2014) (not for publication). Fed. 

R. Evid. 201(b)(2); United States v. Martinez, 771 F.3d 672, 674 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. Wilson, 

631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980)). 

Case 1:11-cv-00444-AWI-SKO Document 125 Filed 02/04/15 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

2. In light of 28 U.S.C. § 476(a)(1), the Civil Justice Reform Act, the parties’ crossmotions for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion and related motions are 

DEEMED VACATED from the Court’s calendar pending resolution of the order to 

show cause.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2 The Court’s action is purely administrative and the parties need take no further action. 

Case 1:11-cv-00444-AWI-SKO Document 125 Filed 02/04/15 Page 3 of 3