Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00593/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00593-43/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNARD DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES WALKER, et al.,

Defendants.

 

KENNARD DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES WALKER, et al.,

Defendants. 

No. 2:08-cv-0593 KJM DB

 No. 2:10-cv-2139 KJM DB

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with these civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

Pending before the court are several motions filed by plaintiff relating to her motion to be 

1 Plaintiff makes many of the same allegations regarding her medical care, among other things, in 

the two cases covered by this order and, with few exceptions, files the same documents in both 

cases. Therefore, the court has and will continue to issue the same orders in both cases. Unless 

otherwise noted, the electronic filing numbers in the text refer to the docket in the 2008 case. 

Case 2:08-cv-00593-KJM-SCR Document 340 Filed 11/03/23 Page 1 of 5
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

restored to competency. For the reasons set forth below, this court finds the motions premature 

and denies them without prejudice to their renewal at a later time. In addition, based on 

plaintiff’s request, this court vacates the portion of its September 21, 2023 order granting 

plaintiff’s motions for appointment of an expert and considers those motions withdrawn. 

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

The background of proceedings regarding plaintiff’s competency, her motion to be 

restored to competency status, and her representation in the present actions is set out in this 

court’s January 6, 2023 order and will not be repeated here. (See ECF No. 281.) In June, at the 

court’s request, defendant’s counsel filed a report regarding plaintiff’s current mental status. 

(ECF No. 301.) Based on the “limited evidence” in that report, most defendants take the position 

that plaintiff “appears to be competent.” (ECF No. 315 in case no. 2:08-cv-0593 KJM DB and 

ECF No. 393 in case no. 2:10-cv-2139 KJM DB.) One defendant in case no. 2:10-cv-2139 KJM 

DB opines that plaintiff is “currently competent to represent herself.” (ECF No. 385.) 

In an order filed September 21, this court found that the appropriate first step in 

determining plaintiff’s competence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 is appointment of a 

neutral expert. (ECF No. 320.) Plaintiff had filed three motions seeking the appointment of 

psychiatrist Dr. Kaushal Sharma, who rendered an opinion on plaintiff’s competence in 2011. 

This court granted plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of an expert and directed the parties to 

attempt to contact Dr. Sharma. Defendants’ counsel recently submitted a statement describing 

their unsuccessful attempts to locate and contact Dr. Sharma. (ECF No. 336.) In plaintiff’s 

recent filings, as discussed below, she withdraws her motions for the appointment of a mental 

health expert. 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

Plaintiff has seven pending motions relating to her motion to be declared competent.2 

Before addressing those motions, this court notes that plaintiff directed each to Chief Judge 

2 Plaintiff has a pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (ECF Nos. 327, 334.) The basis for 

plaintiff’s appeal is the court’s denial of plaintiff’s motions relating to her request for a transfer to 

a women’s prison, which is not a subject of the present cases. (See ECF No. 322.) 

Case 2:08-cv-00593-KJM-SCR Document 340 Filed 11/03/23 Page 2 of 5
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

Mueller. In October 2022 Chief Judge Mueller referred these cases to the undersigned magistrate 

judge for “all further proceedings,” including all pending motions. (ECF No. 275; see also ECF 

No. 278.) Chief Judge Mueller denied plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of that order. (ECF 

No. 277.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge will rule on most non-dispositive motions, such as 

the motions currently before the court. For dispositive motions, the magistrate judge issues 

findings and recommendations to the district judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Local Rule 

302.

In motions filed in May 2023, plaintiff asks: (1) to cross-examine Dr. Mannis, who 

examined plaintiff in 2017 to provide the court with an opinion about plaintiff’s physical health,

and (2) to unseal Dr. Mannis’s report. (ECF Nos. 298, 299.) Dr. Mannis’s opinion involves 

plaintiff’s physical health, which is one of the bases for plaintiff’s claims in these cases. The 

issue currently before the court is plaintiff’s mental health and competence. This court will deny 

plaintiff’s motions regarding Dr. Mannis without prejudice to their renewal when the merits of 

plaintiff’s claims are addressed. 

In a motion filed June 16, 2023, plaintiff asks to cross-examine Dr. Neumann, the 

Regional Administrator of CDCR’s Mental Health Program-Region II. (ECF No. 302.) Dr. 

Neumann prepared the report on plaintiff’s mental health that defendants filed here on June 6, 

2023. In October, plaintiff moved to cross-examine Drs. Peterson and Flinn, who appear to be his 

current mental health providers and provided some of the information contained in the June 6

report. (ECF Nos. 330, 331.) As explained in this court’s September 21 order, this court finds 

the first step in considering plaintiff’s motion to be restored to competency status is appointment 

of a neutral mental health expert to examine plaintiff and render an opinion on plaintiff’s 

competence. If this court determines additional evidence is required, plaintiff may be permitted 

to examine Dr. Neumann and her current mental health providers. Therefore, plaintiff’s motions 

to examine Drs. Neumann, Peterson, and Flinn are denied without prejudice to their renewal at an 

appropriate time. Plaintiff is warned that this court will make clear when, and if, it will be 

appropriate to renew these motions. If plaintiff re-files those motions prior to this court’s 

permission to do so, the motions will be disregarded. 

Case 2:08-cv-00593-KJM-SCR Document 340 Filed 11/03/23 Page 3 of 5
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

4

In motions filed October 4, plaintiff requests a status conference and a settlement 

conference. (ECF Nos. 325, 326.) She provides no reasons for either one. This court does not 

find a status conference useful at this time. With respect to the request for a settlement 

conference, one defendant has filed a statement of non-opposition to that motion. (ECF No. 414 

in case no. 2:10-cv-2139 KJM DB.) However, a settlement conference is not appropriate until a 

determination has been made that plaintiff is competent to represent herself in these cases. Those 

motions will be denied without prejudice. 

Finally, plaintiff filed objections to this court’s September 21 order granting her motions 

for the appointment of a mental health expert. (ECF No. 332.) Plaintiff states that she does not 

seek appointment of any expert regarding her motion to be restored to competence. On October 

4, plaintiff also filed a request to withdraw those motions. (ECF No. 324.) This court will 

therefore vacate the portions of the September 21 order granting those motions and consider them 

withdrawn. That said, this court retains its independent decision in the September 21 order that 

appointment of a neutral mental health expert is appropriate at this time. While plaintiff 

complains that the parties do not disagree that she is competent, as this court explained in the 

September 21 order the court has an obligation to protect incompetent parties. Therefore, while 

the court considers defendants’ opinions regarding plaintiff’s competence, those opinions are not 

determinative. Moreover, all but one defendant qualified their opinion as based on “limited 

evidence.” This court also finds the evidence currently available insufficient to render a decision 

on plaintiff’s competence. Because plaintiff addresses her objections to the court’s ruling that an 

expert should be appointed to Chief Judge Mueller, the undersigned will not consider them 

further. 

In their response to the court’s order regarding contact information for Dr. Sharma, 

defendants demonstrate that they have made a good faith attempt to obtain that information but 

have been unable to do so. (ECF No. 336.) In addition, it appears Dr. Sharma may be retired. 

This court will therefore locate and engage an expert to conduct a mental health examination of 

plaintiff and render an opinion on her competency. 

////

Case 2:08-cv-00593-KJM-SCR Document 340 Filed 11/03/23 Page 4 of 5
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

5

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to cross-examine Dr. Mannis (ECF No. 298 in case no. 2:08-cv-0593

KJM DB and ECF No. 374 in case no. 2:10-cv-2139 KJM DB) is denied without prejudice.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to unseal Dr. Mannis’s report (ECF No. 299 in case no. 2:08-cv0593 and ECF No. 375 in case no. 2:10-cv-2139 KJM DB) is denied without prejudice.

3. Plaintiff’s motion to cross-examine Dr. Neumann (ECF No. 302 in case no. 2:08-cv0593 KJM DB and ECF No. 378 in case no. 2:10-cv-2139 KJM DB) is denied without prejudice.

4. Plaintiff’s motions to cross-examine Drs. Peterson and Flinn (ECF Nos. 330, 331 in

case no. 2:08-cv-0593 KJM DB and ECF Nos. 406, 407 in case no. 2:10-cv-2139 KJM DB) 

are denied without prejudice. 

5. Plaintiff’s motions for a status conference and a settlement conference (ECF Nos. 325,

326 in case no. 2:08-cv-0593 KJM DB and ECF Nos. 402, 403 in case no. 2:10-cv-2139 KJM 

DB) are denied without prejudice.

6. The portion of this court’s September 21, 2023 order (ECF No. 320 in case no. 2:08-

cv-0593 KJM DB and ECF No. 398 in case no. 2:10-cv-2139 KJM DB) granting plaintiff’s

motions for appointment of an expert is vacated. In all other respects, the September 21 order, 

including this court’s determination that appointment of a mental health expert is appropriate at 

this time, is unchanged. 

7. Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of an expert (ECF Nos. 294, 303, 304 in case

no. 2:08-cv-0593 KJM DB and ECF Nos. 371, 379, 380 in case no. 2:10-cv-2139 KJM DB) are 

considered withdrawn. 

Dated: November 3, 2023 

DLB:9/DB prisoner inbox/civil rights/S/davi0593&2139.p comp related mtns

Case 2:08-cv-00593-KJM-SCR Document 340 Filed 11/03/23 Page 5 of 5