Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05390/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05390-2/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES HOPKINS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

MOHAMMAD ALI, et al., )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

CV F 02-5390 AWI SMS P

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS BECAUSE THEY HAVE

BEEN WITHDRAWN

(Documents #86, #87, & #88)

This action proceeds on Plaintiff Charles Hopkins (“Plaintiff”)’s amended

complaint filed May 2, 2002. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of

Corrections, brings this civil rights action against Defendants Ali, Martinez, and Loaiza

(“Defendants”) for violations of Plaintiff’s civil rights. Plaintiff contends that Defendants

Martinez and Ali were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs in violation of the

Eighth Amendment and Defendants Martinez, Ali, and Loaiza were negligent to Plaintiff in

violation of California law.

On May 16, 2005, Defendants filed a motion for leave to file a motion to dismiss. 

The same day, Defendants filed an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss. Defendants

contend that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing this

action. 

Case 1:02-cv-05390-AWI -SMS Document 103 Filed 06/13/05 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

27

28 2

On May 31, 2005, Plaintiff filed an opposition. Plaintiff contends that he did

exhaust his administrative remedies and further exhaustion was not necessary because Plaintiff’s

appeals were granted at the Second Level. 

On June 10, 2005, the court held a telephonic hearing. At the hearing, Plaintiff

stated that his claim for deliberate indifference is based on the failure to give him medical

treatment for his injured hand and the failure to give him adequate pain medication. Plaintiff

clarified that his claim for deliberate indifference based on the lack of adequate pain medication

is premised on the failure to give him adequate pain medication from April 25, 2001 to May 10,

2001. While Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim is based on the failure to give pain

medication during this time frame, Plaintiff alleges lingering pain as damages stemming from

Defendants’ conduct. Based on Plaintiffs’ statements regarding his claim, Defendants withdrew

their motion. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for leave to file

a motion to dismiss and Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust

administrative remedies are DENIED because these motions have been WITHDRAWN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05390-AWI -SMS Document 103 Filed 06/13/05 Page 2 of 2