Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02339/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02339-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARNEY O. LYONS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2339 FCD DAD P

vs.

ALVARO TRAQUINA, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action seeking

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff’s complaint and in forma pauperis application were filed in the

United States District Court for the Northern District of California on August 29, 2006. The case

was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on

October 24, 2006. The proceeding has been referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local

Rule 72-302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

On August 29, 2006, the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of California

notified plaintiff of deficiencies in his application to proceed in forma pauperis. On September

8, 2006, plaintiff filed a new application to proceed in forma pauperis. The new application

makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and will be granted.

Case 2:06-cv-02339-RJT Document 7 Filed 12/04/06 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

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) & 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff was without funds when he filed this action and

had been without funds for six months prior to that date. Accordingly, the court will not assess

an initial partial filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff will be obligated to make

monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s

prison trust account. These payments will be collected and forwarded by the appropriate agency

to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the

$350.00 filing fee is paid in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). Pursuant to the screening requirement, the court must dismiss a prisoner’s claims if

they are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

seek monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1) and (2). Similarly, when any plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in federal court in

forma pauperis, the court is required to dismiss the case if the court determines that the action is

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary

relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

In the present case, plaintiff is a state prisoner confined in California State Prison,

Solano. His claims arose at that institution and concern medical treatment for his left shoulder. 

The three defendants are Alvaro Traquina, Chief Medical Officer; Daniel Thor, Chief Physician

and Surgeon; and John Kofoed, an orthopedic surgeon who recently resigned. Plaintiff seeks an

order requiring prison officials to (1) send him to an orthopedic specialist at the University of

California, Davis to complete the medical procedure needed to repair his left shoulder and (2)

provide proper therapy and aftercare for the shoulder. Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages.

In a letter submitted with his complaint, plaintiff states that “[t]his same case now

exists in the Superior Court of Solano, case number FCS025787 (civil), Lyons v. Kofoed, et al.” 

Case 2:06-cv-02339-RJT Document 7 Filed 12/04/06 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

(Letter filed Aug. 29, 2006.) Plaintiff indicates that the state court “has held the doctor who

performed surgery to negligence, intentional tort . . . medical battery for performing a surgery

without my consent.” (Id.) Plaintiff inquires whether his case can proceed in state and federal

courts at the same time. He also requests guidance on what to do next.

“Plaintiffs do not have the right actively to pursue parallel state and federal

actions simultaneously.” Ollie v. Riggin, 848 F.2d 1016, 1017 (9th Cir. 1988). In such cases, “it

is appropriate in some cases, and not uncommon, for one forum to stay proceedings pending the

outcome in the other forum.” Rutledge v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 859 F.2d 732, 736 (9th Cir.

1988). Here, plaintiff is actively pursuing the same claims, or some of the same claims, in an

earlier filed state court action and in this federal court action. The proper procedure is for this

court to stay the federal action until the parallel state action has concluded, at which point

plaintiff may proceed in this court on any claims alleged in this action that were not presented to

the state court. In order to avoid piecemeal litigation of this action, the undersigned will

recommend that this action be stayed pending final disposition of the state court proceedings. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (docketed as #2) is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

The fee shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith;

IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be stayed pending final disposition of the action filed by plaintiff in

state court raising some or all of the claims alleged in this action; and

2. Plaintiff be directed to file a motion to lift the stay of this action within thirty

days after final resolution of his state court action.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

Case 2:06-cv-02339-RJT Document 7 Filed 12/04/06 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

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 4, 2006.

DAD:13

lyon2339.stay

Case 2:06-cv-02339-RJT Document 7 Filed 12/04/06 Page 4 of 4