Opinion
No. 2:14-cv-2458 MCE AC P
09-18-2015
TAJHIKEEM WOODS, Plaintiff, v. RODDRICK, et al., Defendants.
ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff, a state prisoner at the California Health Care Facility (CHCF) in Stockton, has filed a motion for protective order in this action, informing the court that he attempted suicide on July 30, 2015, due to the "verbal/mental abuse" of correctional staff at his previous institution, including "us[ing] his mental disorder and his confidential mental health information as a tool to torture the plaintiff." ECF No. 27 at 1. Plaintiff also alleges physical abuse: "When petitioner woke up, he wasn't receiving CPR. He was being beat by Correctional Officer Zaragosa et al., . . . [and] still [hasn't] received proper medical attention . . . ." Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff states that he "is in a vary fragil mental state of mind" (sic), and asks the court to place him in protective custody; order medical care including x-rays of his foot (which he believes was broken by the recent alleged beating); and to commence substantive review of these matters without plaintiff attempting to exhaust an administrative grievance. Id. at 1-3.
Although plaintiff's motion was received by the court on September 10, 2010, it was initially mistakenly filed in the wrong case. See Case No. 15cv0564 GEB AC P, ECF No. 21. --------
In addition, plaintiff has submitted exhibits of prior grievances that he has attempted to pursue related to the matters addressed in the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 15). These documents, in tandem with plaintiff's objections (ECF No. 23) to the undersigned's Findings and Recommendations filed June 12, 2015 (ECF No. 20), indicate that plaintiff may have been prevented from pursuing his administrative remedies due to circumstances beyond his control. Judgment was based on a finding that plaintiff had commenced the action prior to administrative exhaustion (ECF Nos. 20, 24). The dismissal was accordingly without prejudice. Id. It now appears that the Findings and Recommendations were issued on the basis of a record related to the exhaustion issue that was incomplete due to circumstance beyond plaintiff's control.
For these reasons, the undersigned will recommend that the judgment entered in this case on August 20, 2015 (ECF No. 25), be vacated for further consideration of plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 15).
More immediately, the Office of the Attorney General will be directed to inquire regarding plaintiff's immediate safety, his alleged urgent need for medical care, and his current mental status. Because defendant has not yet been served process in this case, this order will be directed to a Supervising Deputy Attorney General.
Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Office of the California Attorney General is directed to contact CHCF authorities forthwith, to determine the present status of plaintiff's safety and mental and physical treatment needs.
2. Because no defendant has been served process in this case, the Clerk of Court is directed to fax a copy of this order to the Office of the California Attorney General, Attention: Supervising Deputy Attorney General Monica Anderson.
3. Ms. Anderson or her designee is directed to file a status report with the court within fourteen (14) days after the filing date of this order, and to serve a copy of the report on plaintiff.
In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the judgment entered in this action August 20, 2015, ECF No. 25 (and therefore the Findings and Recommendations filed June 12, 2015, ECF No. 20), be vacated for purposes of further consideration of plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 15).
This recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Although this recommendation benefits plaintiff, he is entitled to file written objections within fourteen days after service of this order, captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." 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: September 18, 2015
/s/_________
ALLISON CLAIRE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE