Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01413/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01413-12/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARVEY EUGENE LARSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-01413 ALA P

vs.

RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

The Plaintiff is directed to file a response to the Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment within thirty-five days of the date of this order. Plaintiff’s response or opposition

should address the following questions:

One. Is there any genuine issue of fact in dispute regarding

whether tobacco has been banned by the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation?

Two. Should Plaintiff’s claim against Governor Schwarzenegger

be dismissed on the ground that no facts have been alleged which

would support Plaintiff’s claim against him?

Three. Is there any court decision that holds that the denial of all

tobacco products including snuff deprives a prisoner of his or her

Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual

punishment?

Four. Is there any case that holds that the use of snuff is a medical

necessity?

Case 2:06-cv-01413-ALA Document 77 Filed 11/16/07 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

Five. Is there any court decision that holds that the use of tobacco

products such as snuff is a fundamental liberty interest protected

by the Fourteenth Amendment against deprivation by a State?

Six. Does the banning of tobacco products such as snuff serve a

legitimate penological interest to provide a healthy environment

for prison inmates?

Seven. Are the Defendants entitled to assert the defense of

qualified immunity, because the banning of tobacco products such

as snuff, if such conduct does not violate clearly established

federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

person would have known?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 15, 2007

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:06-cv-01413-ALA Document 77 Filed 11/16/07 Page 2 of 2