Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01710/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01710-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEREMY JAMISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

YC PARMIA INSURANCE GROUP, et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-1710 GEB KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with this civil rights action seeking relief 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s first amended complaint in 

which he alleges violation of his constitutional rights by defendants while plaintiff was housed in 

the Yolo County Jail, stemming from a July 3, 2014 traffic accident.

On November 24, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion in which he seeks leave to submit 

documentation in support of an “emergency injunction request [he] recently made.” (ECF No. 18 

at 1.) Plaintiff claims that defendants and their co-workers continue to deny him pain medication 

which he has been on for the past two years. Plaintiff claims “they continue to make it difficult to 

even find relief through the 602 system and just immediately cause me to suffer by taking away

medications [plaintiff] need[s].” (ECF No. 18 at 1.) Plaintiff appends copies of his 

administrative appeals and states that although the appeal was cancelled based on plaintiff’s 

alleged “failure to cooperate,” that plaintiff wasn’t even at that prison, so could not have failed to 

Case 2:14-cv-01710-GEB-KJN Document 21 Filed 12/05/14 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

27

28

2

cooperate. Plaintiff asks the court to provide a court-appointed doctor to deal with plaintiff’s 

medical issues.

First, the court is not in receipt of a motion for emergency injunctive relief filed in this 

action. However, plaintiff has numerous other cases pending in this court, and it is not clear 

whether plaintiff is pursuing the medical claims raised in the instant motion in any of those 

actions. As a pro se litigant, plaintiff is responsible for keeping track of his cases and filing his 

motions in the appropriate action.

Second, plaintiff’s requests concerning medical care at the California Substance Abuse 

Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California, are not properly raised in this action. As set forth 

above, this action is proceeding on concrete claims against defendants in Yolo County, all of 

which stem from a July 3, 2014 traffic accident, and the issue of whether defendants were 

deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s safety based on their alleged failure to provide safety belts in 

the van. Plaintiff’s subsequent medical care at a state prison does not involve the instant 

defendants. Under these circumstances, this court is unable to issue an order against individuals 

who are not parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 

395 U.S. 100 (1969). Moreover, plaintiff’s subsequent medical care, particularly concerning 

medication that plaintiff has been taking for two years, which suggests it was prescribed for 

medical conditions predating the July 3, 2014 accident, is not related to the legal issues 

proceeding in this action. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (joinder of defendants not permitted unless both commonality and same 

transaction requirements are satisfied). Thus, plaintiff may not pursue these medical claims in 

this action.

Third, because plaintiff is now housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment 

Facility in Corcoran, California, civil rights claims concerning his medical care must be raised in 

the Fresno Division of this court.

Finally, although plaintiff states that he “cannot appeal the cancellation” (ECF No. 18 at 

2) of his medical 602 or administrative appeal, the appended cancellation notice states that “[t]his 

screening action may not be appealed unless you allege that the above reason is inaccurate.” 

Case 2:14-cv-01710-GEB-KJN Document 21 Filed 12/05/14 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

27

28

3

(ECF No. 18 at 4.) Because plaintiff claims that the appeal was wrongfully cancelled based on 

plaintiff’s alleged failure to cooperate in the interview because plaintiff wasn’t housed at that 

prison during the time of the alleged lack of cooperation, plaintiff may want to seek 

reconsideration of the cancellation of his 602 grievance on that basis. The last paragraph of the 

November 13, 2014 administrative appeal cancellation notice explains how to request 

reconsideration of a cancelled appeal. (ECF No. 18 at 4.)

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 24, 2014 motion 

(ECF No. 18) is denied without prejudice.

Dated: December 5, 2014

/jami1710.den

Case 2:14-cv-01710-GEB-KJN Document 21 Filed 12/05/14 Page 3 of 3