Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02369/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02369-0/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Kenneth D. Phelon,

Plaintiff,

vs.

P. Stolzenbach, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. Civ. S-02-2369 LKK PAN P

Order

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel prosecuting a

civil rights action. 

The complaint alleges as follows. October 28, 2000,

correctional officer Stolenbach made a written rules violation

report alleging that on October 20 she observed plaintiff “making

sexual gestures towards me. [Plaintiff] was laying in bed ...

with gray sweat pants on with an erect penis, making hip

movements while watching my every move.” Correctional Lieutenant

Gower adjudicated the charge. Plaintiff denied he had done

Case 2:02-cv-02369-LKK -PAN Document 59 Filed 09/08/05 Page 1 of 4
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

anything wrong and complained Stolenbach made the charge to

retaliate for complaining about “a bed move and what I perceived

to be harassment.” Gower called Stolenbach as a witness. She

said she did not know plaintiff before the incident and had

waited eight days to write her report because she mistakenly

thought another would write the report after she complained and

also because in the meanwhile she had “discovered that

[plaintiff] previously exposed himself to another female

officer.” Gower found plaintiff guilty and as punishment imposed

a loss of 60 days’ good time credit. Plaintiff appealed,

alleging the charge was conjured and made in reprisal for a

grievance filed October 27 (which was rejected as excessively

verbose) and that Stolenbach should not have been “monitoring his

unexposed crotch while he lay on his bed with his clothes on.” 

At the final level of review of plaintiff’s grievance, the

director found that “hip movements with an erect penis while

clothed in sweatpants all the while maintaining eye contact with

the female [guard]” constituted a violation of California Penal

Code 647, which prohibits lewd or dissolute conduct in public,

punishable by credit forfeiture of 31-60 days, and that plaintiff

had received the process due. Time credits later were restored.

October 28, 2002, plaintiff commenced this proceeding by

filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Respondent moved

to dismiss upon the ground plaintiff had not exhausted his state

court remedies. This court granted the motion but allowed

plaintiff opportunity to plead his claim as a violation of 42

Case 2:02-cv-02369-LKK -PAN Document 59 Filed 09/08/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

U.S.C. § 1983, which he did on August 18, 2003. In his

complaint, plaintiff also alleged that he had since been required

to provide fingerprints in anticipation of being required to

register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code § 290 on

account of the administrative findings. Plaintiff alleges

defendants violated his right of privacy, Stolzenbach and Gower

retaliated against him for grieving alleged harassment by staff,

Gower found him guilty without any evidence of an erection, and,

under these circumstances, registration as a sex offender would

constitute cruel and unusual punishment. 

The court authorized service of process upon Stolzenbach and

Gower and they answered December 8, 2003.

Plaintiff moves to compel further response to his

interrogatories, requests for admission and document requests. 

Plaintiff’s discovery requests focus on defendants’ training in

the area of sexual harassment, the prison’s pertinent policies or

lack thereof, Stolzenbach’s state of mind and similar charges

against other inmates.

It appears to the court, however, from the records of the

original adjudication of the disciplinary violation and

subsequent grievance proceedings, that none of the material facts

are in dispute. The court therefore denies plaintiff’s motion to

compel discovery without prejudice.

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Plaintiff’s July 6, 2004, motion to compel discovery is

denied without prejudice. 

Case 2:02-cv-02369-LKK -PAN Document 59 Filed 09/08/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

2. Within 30 days after service of this order, defendants

shall serve and file a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff

may serve and file an opposition thereto and cross-motion for

summary judgment within 30 days after service of defendants’

motion; defendants may reply and oppose within 15 days after

service of any cross-motion and opposition; plaintiff may reply

within 15 days thereafter. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f),

any party’s opposition may include a demonstration that he or she

cannot adduce facts necessary to support the opposition to

summary judgment, in which case the court may deny summary

judgment or order a continuance to permit depositions to be taken

or discovery to be had or make such other order as may be just.

Dated: September 8, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:02-cv-02369-LKK -PAN Document 59 Filed 09/08/05 Page 4 of 4