Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02675/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02675-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHADALE L. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ANITA MITCHELL, et al.,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-2675 SBA (PR)

ORDER ADDRESSING PENDING

MOTIONS AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF

AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Docket nos. 35, 36)

Plaintiff Shadale Lewis Williams, a state prisoner incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison,

has filed the instant civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional rights

violations that occurred when he was incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison. 

In an Order dated September 29, 2006, the Court found that Plaintiff had stated a cognizable

Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs against all named

Defendants. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims of injunctive relief. The cognizable Eighth

Amendment claim was ordered served on Defendants. 

On December 11, 2006, Defendant Lee filed his Answer. On January 11, 2007, he filed a

motion to dismiss.

On March 12, 2007, the Court reissued summons on the three remaining defendants. On

May 17, 2007, Defendants Mitchell, Duncan and Gist filed their Answer.

In an Order dated June 4, 2007, the Court directed Defendants Mitchell, Duncan and Gist to

advise the Court if they will be filing a joinder to Defendant Lee's Motion to Dismiss. 

On June 5, 2007, Defendants Mitchell, Duncan and Gist filed a joinder to Defendant Lee's

Motion to Dismiss. 

On June 14, 2007, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Declarative Motion in Objection to the

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Request for Ruling." He alleges that he did not receive

Defendant Lee's Motion to Dismiss filed on January 11, 2007. He also alleges that he was not aware

that his opposition was due on February 26, 2007. He claims that his "confidential mail from both

Case 4:05-cv-02675-SBA Document 39 Filed 07/05/07 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 While Plaintiff claims that he is "nearly blind by diagnosis," he has not indicated to the

Court that he is unable read or write without having access to his "diabetic eyeware [sic]." Based on

the fact that Plaintiff has been able to file two handwritten documents, the Court is not convinced

that Plaintiff is unable to proceed in this action without his "diabetic eyeware [sic]."

2

 Plaintiff's allegations of the deprivation of his legal and personal property, including the

above allegations of mail tampering, occurred while he was in prison at Kern Valley State Prison

(KVSP) in Kern County, which is within the venue of the Eastern District of California. If Plaintiff

wishes to pursue these claims, he should file a new action in the Eastern District of California, as

that is where the events and omissions giving rise to such claims occurred and where the appropriate

defendants apparently reside. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. However, the Court notes that neither the

negligent nor intentional deprivation of property states a due process claim under § 1983 if the

deprivation was random and unauthorized. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535-44 (1981) (state

employee negligently lost prisoner's hobby kit), overruled in part on other grounds, Daniels v.

Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986). The availability of an adequate state post-deprivation

remedy, e.g. a state tort action, precludes relief because it provides adequate procedural due process. 

King v. Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825, 826 (9th Cir. 1986). California law provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy for any property deprivations. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir.

1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895). 

2

this Court and the defendants were 'pre-opened' and 'impeded' [from] being [] delivered. . . ." As of

May 11, 2007, he alleges that he has not had possession of his personal or legal property, including

this action's case file, and that he has had no access to the prison law library. He states, "I have been

Keyhea(ed) ('involuntary [sic] medicated') after making a complaint of 'staff brutalization' and do

suffer severe side effects; moreover, the 'medical/mental' health department have both taken my

'diabetic eyeware' and misplaced them -- lost -- I am nearly blind by diagnosis."1 Finally, he claims

that "without any form of property nor access to law library," he is "unable to make a desired

response."

On June 20, 2007, Plaintiff filed another document entitled "Declarative Motion for

Immediate Injunctive Relief." He again alleges that he did not receive Defendant Lee's Answer or

his Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff also alleges that he currently does not possess: "(a) this Court's

(dated 9-29-06) briefing schedule; (b) this case's file and evidence; legal 'property' and [his] federal

case 'cummulated' [sic] cites and law; [and] (c) personal property (i.e., 'diabetic eyeware' [sic])

confiscated by mental health (MHCB-CTC) on 5-11-07."2

Case 4:05-cv-02675-SBA Document 39 Filed 07/05/07 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Plaintiff fails to explain what "ASU MHCB-CTC" stands for; however, his attachments

indicate that he had been held by KVSP's mental health department as a "crisis" patient. (Attached

to Plaintiff's "Declarative Motion for Immediate Injunctive Relief" are a 602 inmate appeal form

alleging "obstruction of access to court" and a "Criminal Prisoner's Complaint" filed with the Kern

County District Attorney's Office stemming from an incident of alleged excessive force on Plaintiff

by KVSP correctional officers on May 11, 2007. Again, any claims that Plaintiff wishes to pursue

that stem from his incarceration at KVSP should be filed under a new action in the Eastern District

of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.)

4

 Plaintiff's claim that he has a "legal right" to summary judgment is conclusory and made

without any factual or legal basis; therefore, the Court finds that his claim for summary judgment is

meritless.

3

Plaintiff further claims that on May 21, 2007, he was discharged from "ASU MHCB-CTC"3

 and that

"[he] inquired of [his] legal property and was told 'because [he] was litigious [he] would have to file

a grievance to get it. . . .'" Finally, he claims that he has "a legal right to summary judgment in this

action."4

On June 22, 2007, Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff's "Declarative Motion for

Immediate Injunctive Relief." Defendants attach a copy of the motion to dismiss and direct the

Court's attention to the proof of mail-service on Plaintiff on January 11, 2007. Because Plaintiff has

never filed an opposition to their motion to dismiss, Defendants request that the Court make a ruling

on their motion to dismiss. In the alternative, Defendants request that the Court order Plaintiff to file

his opposition by August 7, 2007 because they state that they will be serving Plaintiff with another

copy of the motion to dismiss. 

On July 2, 2007, Defendants filed a Notice of Intent Regarding Plaintiff's Request for

Injunctive Relief. Defendants allege that on June 22, 2007, they "served Plaintiff, for the second

time, with a copy of their motion to dismiss." Defendants also state that they "do not intend to file

an opposition to Plaintiff's motion requesting injunctive relief unless the Court directs them to do

so."

In the Court's September 29, 2006 Order, Plaintiff was directed to file his opposition no later

than forty-five days from the date Defendants' dispositive motion was filed. (See Sept. 29, 2006

Order at 6.) Therefore, Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant Lee's January 11, 2007 Motion to Dismiss

Case 4:05-cv-02675-SBA Document 39 Filed 07/05/07 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.05\Williams2675.grantEOT-MTDopp.frm 4

was due on February 26, 2007. Because Plaintiff's deadline has passed, Court will construe

Plaintiff's document entitled "Declarative Motion in Objection to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

and Request for Ruling" as well as the only remaining valid allegations in his document entitled

"Declarative Motion for Immediate Injunctive Relief" -- i.e., specifically that he did not receive the

motion to dismiss and that he does not have access to the case file in this action -- as Plaintiff's

request for an extension of time in which to file his opposition. Plaintiff has requested no previous

extensions of time. Therefore, the Court GRANTS his request for an extension of time to file his

opposition. 

CONCLUSION

Having read and considered Plaintiff's request and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for an extension of time is GRANTED. 

The time in which Plaintiff may file his response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss will be extended

up to and including August 7, 2007.

Because Plaintiff alleges that he does not have access to certain documents from the case file

in this action, the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to send Plaintiff the following documents: his

original complaint and all its attachments (docket no. 1); the Court's September 29, 2006 Order

(docket no. 8); Defendant Lee's Answer (docket no. 11); and Defendants Mitchell's, Duncan's and

Gist's joinder to Defendant Lee's Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 30).

This Order terminates Docket nos. 35 and 36.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 7/3/07 _______________________________

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02675-SBA Document 39 Filed 07/05/07 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.05\Williams2675.grantEOT-MTDopp.frm 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MITCHELL et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV05-02675 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on July 5, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Shadale Lewis Williams E-11488

Kern Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 5103

Delano, CA 93216

Dated: July 5, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:05-cv-02675-SBA Document 39 Filed 07/05/07 Page 5 of 5