Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_93-cv-00767/USCOURTS-caed-2_93-cv-00767-9/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

WILLIAM ROUSER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-93-0767 LKK GGH P

vs.

THEO WHITE, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s supplemental complaint filed January

30, 2006, and defendants’ motion to dismiss filed February 27, 2006, and motion to stay filed

March 14, 2006.

 The operative amended complaint filed February 12, 1997, concerns plaintiff’s

ability to practice his Wiccan religion from approximately 1990 to 1997 at California State

Prison-Sacramento (CSP-Sac). This action is set for jury trial on March 27, 2007.

On January 13, 2006, the court ordered that plaintiff could file a supplemental

complaint regarding the continued violations of the specific rights alleged in the operative

amended complaint filed February 12, 1997, following his transfer to Mule Creek State Prison

(MCSP). See January 13, 2006, order. 

Case 2:93-cv-00767-LKK -GGH Document 243 Filed 07/11/06 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

 Plaintiff apparently transferred away from CSP-Sac sometime between the time the 1

operative amended complaint was filed and 1999. 

2

On January 30, 2006, plaintiff filed a supplemental complaint which includes

claims regarding his ability to practice his Wiccan religion occurring at CSP-Sac from 19991

until his transfer to MCSP as well as his ability to practice his religion while at MCSP. The

supplemental complaint names 26 new defendants. 

Defendants move to dismiss the claims contained in the supplemental complaint

regarding the events occurring at CSP-Sac after 1999 on grounds that the January 13, 2006, order

did not authorize plaintiff to include these claims. Rather, this order only authorized plaintiff to

include his claims regarding conditions at MCSP. Defendants also argue that the supplemental

complaint includes legal claims not raised in the operative amended complaint. 

The supplemental complaint includes several claims authorized by the January 13,

2006, order. However, it is unclear whether the court is authorized to bar plaintiff’s claims

regarding events at CSP-Sac after the settlement of this action. See March 23, 2004, Order by

Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton, p. 3, n. 3 (“Moreover, once plaintiff’s suit is reinstated, he will

be free to amend to include whatever wrongs he may allege pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15).

To allow plaintiff to proceed with the colorable claims raised in the supplemental

complaint would significantly delay and complicate resolution of this long pending action. After

further consideration, the court has determined that it would be more efficient to sever the claims

raised in the supplemental complaint, but for the injunctive relief claims regarding MCSP, and

allow plaintiff to proceed with these claims in a separate action. The jury trial in this action will

then concern plaintiff’s claims for damages regarding the events occurring at CSP-Sac alleged in

the operative amended complaint and his claims for injunctive relief regarding MCSP. Because

the Director of the California Department of Corrections is named in his official capacity, the

court need not order service of additional defendants regarding the new claims for injunctive

relief. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims raised in the supplemental

Case 2:93-cv-00767-LKK -GGH Document 243 Filed 07/11/06 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

complaint is vacated.

Defendants have also moved to stay this action pending a determination of an

inmate class of Wiccan/Pagain inmates in McCollum, et al. v. California Department of

Corrections, No. C-04-3339 CRB (N.D. Cal.). Defendants argue that because plaintiff is a

member of this proposed class and both actions involve similar questions of law, a stay will

avoid conflicting decisions and duplication of discovery as well as minimize costs.

Individual suits for injunctive and equitable relief from alleged unconstitutional

prison conditions cannot be brought where there is a pending class action suit involving the same

subject matter. McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163, 1165 (10 Cir. 1991). The records from the th

Northern District indicate that McCollum has not yet been certified as a class action. In fact, the

Northern District records indicate that the plaintiffs have not yet moved for class certification. 

For these reasons, the court finds that defendants’ motion is premature. Moreover, it is unclear

whether plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief would be barred because no class action was

pending when it was made.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ February 27, 2006, motion to dismiss is vacated;

2. James E. Tilton, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections, is

substituted as defendant in his official capacity pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d);

3. Within thirty days of the date of this order, James E. Tilton shall file a response

to plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief regarding MCSP contained in the January 30, 2006,

supplemental complaint;

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to copy plaintiff’s January 30, 2006,

supplemental complaint and open it as a new action assigned to the same judges as are assigned

to the instant action;

/////

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00767-LKK -GGH Document 243 Filed 07/11/06 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

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED defendants’ March 14, 2006, motion to stay

be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

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

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 7/11/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

rous767.sev

Case 2:93-cv-00767-LKK -GGH Document 243 Filed 07/11/06 Page 4 of 4