Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00838/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00838-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS HENDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAROYA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00838-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER AMENDING SENTENCE IN ORDER

OF APRIL 14, 2006 (Doc. 14)

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AND

REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH

ORDER OF APRIL 14, 2006 WITHIN THIRTY

DAYS (Docs. 14 and 15)

On April 14, 2006, the court issued an order requiring plaintiff to either file an amended

complaint or notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable

by the court in the order. On April 28, 2006, plaintiff filed a request for clarification.

The order of April 14, 2006, contains an omission. It is possible that this omission led to

plaintiff’s need for clarification. The sentence on page 5, lines 1 and 2 is amended to read,

“Although plaintiff alleges that he utilized the prison grievance process by filing an inmate

appeal, that does not satisfy the Tort Claims Act with respect to plaintiff’s state law negligence

claims.” (Doc. 14.)

Turning to plaintiff’s request for clarification, the court cannot advise plaintiff on what he

should or should not do regarding the issue of exhaustion. However, plaintiff’s request for

clarification is granted in that plaintiff is advised that the requirement he exhaust by filing an inmate

appeal (CDC-602) and that he exhaust by filing a claim with the California Victim Compensation

and Government Claims Board, formerly known as the State Board of Control, are two separate

Case 1:05-cv-00838-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 2
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

requirements and are not interchangeable. In order to pursue his federal constitutional claims under

section 1983, plaintiff is required to exhaust the inmate appeals process in compliance with 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The court’s order did not address that issue and did not direct plaintiff to cure

any deficiencies concerning that issue. In order to pursue his state law tort claims of negligence,

plaintiff is required by California’s Tort Claims Act to file a claim with the California Victim

Compensation and Government Claims Board. Compliance with the Tort Claims Act is a

prerequisite to filing suit and plaintiff must allege compliance in order to proceed with his state law

negligence claims. It is this issue that the court’s order addressed, and plaintiff was granted the

opportunity to amend to cure the deficiency concerning this issue, in the event that it is curable.

Accordingly, plaintiff is required to comply with the court’s order of April 14, 2006,

within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order by either (1) filing an amended

complaint or (2) notifying the court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found to

be cognizable by the court in its order. By this order, plaintiff’s request for clarification is

deemed addressed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00838-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 2