Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00247/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00247-22/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

DWAYNE S. MONTGOMERY,

Plaintiff,

v.

I. SANCHEZ,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-00247-LJO-DLB (PC)

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

(Document 103)

Plaintiff Dwayne S. Montgomery, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 19, 2013. This action for 

damages is proceeding against Defendant I. Sanchez (“Defendant”) for excessive force in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

An evidentiary hearing is set for October 7, 2015, to determine the following issue: 

whether Plaintiff submitted a CDCR 602 within the 15-day window provided by the regulations, 

and whether it “was intercepted and destroyed by colleagues” of Defendant. 

On September 25, 2015, Defendant requested a clarification of the order, suggesting that 

the Court “inadvertently” omitted additional issues that needed to be decided at the hearing. ECF 

No. 103, at 2. Defendant believes that in addition to the issued cited by the Court above, the Court 

also needs to determine whether Plaintiff was prevented from exhaustion following (1) the 

Case 1:13-cv-00247-LJO-DLB Document 105 Filed 09/28/15 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

cancellation of his March 10, 2011, appeal; and (2) the rejection of his August 9, 2011, appeal.1

Defendant is incorrect. The only factual issue to be decided at the upcoming hearing 

relates to Plaintiff’s August 23, 2010, appeal.

Plaintiff’s appeal-related activities in 2011 are not disputed, and therefore no factual issues 

exist. If the Court finds Plaintiff’s testimony regarding his August 23, 2010, appeal credible, the 

remaining analysis is legal in nature. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 Defendant refers to a January 22, 2011, appeal throughout the pleading, as well as a June 20, 2011, appeal of the 

cancellation. It is unclear if this is a typographical error. In any event, in prior orders and pleadings, the Court and 

Defendant have referred to the appeals at issue by the date they were received. ECF No. 17. The dates of the appeals 

are therefore March 10, 2011, and August 9, 2011. The Court notes that the documents attached to the Declaration of 

S. Tallerico, submitted in support of the March 2014, exhaustion challenge, are very difficult to read, and the Court 

cannot tell if there is a separate date relating to the date on which Plaintiff’s appeals were written and/or submitted. 

Case 1:13-cv-00247-LJO-DLB Document 105 Filed 09/28/15 Page 2 of 2