Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00354/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00354-0/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

1

 Under the “law of the case” doctrine, decisions on legal issues made in a case “should

be followed unless there is substantially different evidence . . . new controlling authority, or the

prior decision was clearly erroneous and would result in injustice.” Handi Investment Co. v.

Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d 391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Waggoner v. Dallaire, 767 F.2d

589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1064 (1986).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO GAVALDON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S- 05-354 MCE GGH P

vs.

TULARE COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. This case was transferred from the Fresno division because the Tulare County defendants

had been dismissed and “[t]he majority of the remaining claims are for conduct that occurred at

Mule Creek State Prison.” See Transfer Order, filed in this court on February 16, 2005. 

This court’s review of the March 15, 2004 complaint indicates that the gravamen

of plaintiff’s allegations center on the Tulare County defendants, whose dismissal is now the law

of the case.1 Also included are claims against at least one defendant at California Men’s Colony. 

Case 2:05-cv-00354-MCE -GGH Document 13 Filed 06/15/05 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

2

In order to clarify plaintiff’s remaining allegations, the court will dismiss the

complaint with leave to amend, within 30 days, so that plaintiff may set forth the relevant

remaining claims against the Mule Creek State Prison defendants in this action. As to any claims

against any defendant at California Men’s Colony, plaintiff may choose to file a separate action

in the Central District as those claims arose in San Luis Obispo County within the Central

District of California. 

Should plaintiff not choose to file an amended complaint, within 30 days, setting

forth his allegations against the Mule Creek Prison defendants and any other remaining claims,

the court will screen the March 15, 2004 complaint to determine whether any of the remaining

claims therein are cognizable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 6/15/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

gava0354.ord

Case 2:05-cv-00354-MCE -GGH Document 13 Filed 06/15/05 Page 2 of 2