Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01547/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01547-15/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

Michael Lenoir Smith, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 1-07-1547-SRB

ORDER

At issue are Defendant Martinez’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

Fourth Amended Complaint (“MTD”), and Defendants’ Request for Clarification Regarding

Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (“Req. for

Clarification”). (Doc. 86, MTD; Doc. 87, Req. for Clarification). 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is an inmate incarcerated in the custody of the California

State Prison, Corcoran. Plaintiff has filed a Fourth Amended Complaint asserting a violation

of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 64, Civil Rights Complaint by a Prisoner,

Fourth Am. Compl.) Plaintiff has asserted a single claim alleging a violation of the Eighth

Amendment based on his incarceration at the Pleasant Valley State Prison Complex, a

Case 1:07-cv-01547-SRB Document 90 Filed 07/23/13 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

1

 The referenced page numbers of the Fourth Amended Complaint are the page

numbers inserted as a result of the electronic filing of the document. 

- 2 -

California prison facility with a known valley fever epidemic. (Fourth Am. Compl. at 5.)1

Plaintiff alleges that he has now contracted valley fever but cannot take the valley fever

medication because he has hepatitis C. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant prison

officials were aware of the severe risk to his health by housing him in the facility but acted

with deliberate indifferent to his medical needs by failing to transfer him. (Id. at 10-12, 14.)

Named Defendants included “John Doe, Appeals Coordinator,” at the Pleasant Valley

facility. (Id. at 3, 14.) This “John Doe”defendant has been identified as H. Martinez. (Doc.

70, Order at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that he submitted a grievance complaining that he was being

exposed to valley fever and requested a transfer but his grievance was “screened out” by the

Appeals Coordinator for the stated reason that “you cannot grieve an issue that has not

occurred.” (Fourth Am. Compl. at 5, 8.) Plaintiff alleges that Martinez, as Appeals

Coordinator, violated his duty to process Plaintiff’s administrative prison grievance, causing

Plaintiff to contract valley fever and foreclosing his right to a higher level of review. (Id. at

8,14.)

II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS

A. Defendant Martinez’s Motion to Dismiss

Defendant Martinez contends that Plaintiff’s claim against him should be dismissed

for failure to state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. (MTD at 3-4.) Defendant argues that the claim fails to assert the violation of a

constitutional right. (Id.) 

However, the Court has already screened Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which uses the same standard as Rule 12(b)(6), Resnick v.

Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and found that it states a claim against the

Defendant John Doe Appeals Coordinator, now identified as Defendant Martinez. (Doc. 65,

Order at 6 (“Plaintiff has alleged his claim with enough specificity to require an answer with

Case 1:07-cv-01547-SRB Document 90 Filed 07/23/13 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 -

respect to Defendant Appeals Coordinator”).) Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent

standard than pleadings prepared by an attorney. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir.

2010). The Court has entered an Order substituting Defendant Appeals Coordinator H.

Martinez for Defendant Appeals Coordinator John Doe and requiring Defendant Martinez

to answer the Fourth Amended Complaint. (Doc. 70, Order at 2.) Defendant Martinez’s

Motion to Dismiss is denied.

B. Defendants’ Request for Clarification

Defendants Cate, Martinez and Yates request clarification on whether they are

required to file an opposition to Plaintiff’s Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for

a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. (Req. for Clarification at 1-2.)

Defendants state that they typically are not required to oppose such motions in the Eastern

District of California unless directed to do so by the Court. (Id.) The Court will require

Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for a

Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed on May 13, 2013. (Doc. 85,

Pl.’s Mot. for TRO and Prelim. Inj.) 

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant Martinez’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. 86).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants’ Request for Clarification

Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

(Doc. 87). Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff’s Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s

Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 85) within

twenty (20) days. 

DATED this 23rd day of July, 2013.

 

Case 1:07-cv-01547-SRB Document 90 Filed 07/23/13 Page 3 of 3