Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-03176/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-03176-28/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT TUNSTALL,

Plaintiff, No. 2:08-cv-3176 WBS JFM (PC)

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding through counsel, with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims defendant prison officials at California Medical

Facility (CMF) have violated his federal constitutional and statutory rights by denying him access

to sign language classes. In his complaint (ECF No.1) plaintiff sought injunctive relief and

money damages. By order filed September 7, 2010 (ECF No. 95), the district court dismissed

plaintiff’s request for prospective injunctive relief on his claims under the Americans with

Disability Act (ADA) without prejudice to plaintiff’s right seek relief as a member of the

Armstrong class. On February 15, 2012, defendants renewed a previously filed motion for 1

Armstrong v. Brown is a class action proceeding in the United States District Court for 1

the Northern District of California. At all times relevant to this action it has been in the remedial

phase.

1

Case 2:08-cv-03176-WBS-KJN Document 174 Filed 07/25/13 Page 1 of 3
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

summary judgment (ECF No. 163). Plaintiff filed his response on April 17, 2012 (ECF No.

165). In the opposition, plaintiff contends, inter alia, that Armstrong does not preclude his

individual request for injunctive relief in this action, and the principal relief for which he argues

is an order permitting him to attend sign language classes. See Response to Defendants’ Motion

for Summary Judgment, filed April 17, 2012 (ECF No. 165), at 6. In their reply, in relevant part,

defendants contend that the claim for injunctive relief has been dismissed and that they are

entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff’s claim for damages. Defendants’

Reply, filed April 23, 2012 (ECF No. 168) at 1. 

On July 16, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued

a decision holding that the consent decree issued in another class action against the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) does not bar “[i]ndividual claims for 2

injunctive relief related to medical treatment” brought by inmates seeking individualized relief. 

Pride v. Correa, 2013 WL 3742531, slip op. at 5 (9th Cir. July 16, 2013). The decision in Pride

may bear directly on issues at bar. In due course, the parties may be required to address the

application of Pride to this action. However, before further briefing is required, the court will set

a mandatory settlement conference in this case. Pursuant to Local Rule 270(b), the parties will

be directed to inform the court in writing as to whether they wish to proceed with the settlement

conference before the undersigned magistrate judge and waive any disqualification stemming

therefrom or if they prefer instead to be referred to another Magistrate Judge of this Court for the

settlement conference.3

////

Plata v. Brown, No. 01-1351 TEH, also is pending in the United States District Court for 2

the Northern District of California and also is in the remedial phase.

In light of the need for further briefing on central issues related to the availability of 3

individual injunctive reliefin this action, and good cause appearing, defendants’ renewed motion for

summary judgment will be denied without prejudice. The court will, if necessary, issue a further

order setting new deadlines for dispositive motions should the case continue after the mandatory

settlement conference.

2

Case 2:08-cv-03176-WBS-KJN Document 174 Filed 07/25/13 Page 2 of 3
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

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within fourteen days from the date of this order, each party shall inform the

court in writing as to whether they wish to proceed with the settlement conference before the

undersigned magistrate judge and waive any disqualification or if they prefer instead to be

referred to another Magistrate Judge of this Court for the settlement conference. If the parties

wish to proceed before the undersigned magistrate judge, each party shall return to the court the

consent form for settlement conferences provided with this order. If the parties do not wish the

undersigned magistrate judge to preside at the settlement conference, each party shall file a

declaration stating he wishes to be referred to another Magistrate Judge of this court for the

settlement conference; 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send each party the consent form for

settlement conferences; and

3. Defendants’ February 15, 2012 renewed motion for summary judgment (ECF

No. 163) is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: July 24, 2013

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12

tuns3176.o7

3

Case 2:08-cv-03176-WBS-KJN Document 174 Filed 07/25/13 Page 3 of 3