Davis v. Walker et al

Filing 286

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 2/28/2023 ORDERING as follows: Defendants' counsel's request for an extension of time to submit the mental health report described in this court's January 6 order is GRANTED. Defen dants' counsel shall file that report within thirty days of the filed date of this order. Plaintiff's Motions to regain competency filed in Case No. 2:08-cv-0593 KJM DB P 248 , 249 , 258 , 263 , and 264 are DISMISSED as redundant. The competency issue in the 2008 case will proceed on Plaintiff's Motion filed 9/8/2022 271]. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENNARD DAVIS,

12

No. 2:08-cv-0593 KJM DB

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

JAMES WALKER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

KENNARD DAVIS,

18

No. 2:10-cv-2139 KJM DB

Plaintiff,

19

v.

20

JAMES WALKER, et al.,

21

ORDER

Defendants.

22
23
24

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with these civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

25

As described in detail in this court’s January 6, 2023 order and findings and recommendations,

26

plaintiff has, among other things, six pending motions1 to be declared competent to proceed pro

27
28

1

Case No. 2:08-cv-0593 KJM DB (ECF Nos. 248, 249, 258, 263, 264, 271); Case No. 2:10-cv2139 KJM DB (ECF Nos. 334, 340, 342, 345, 349).
1

1

se in these cases. (See ECF No. 281.2). In the January 6 order, this court ordered plaintiff’s

2

mental health clinicians to submit a report on the current status of plaintiff’s mental health. That

3

report was due February 6, 2023. When the court received no response to that order, the

4

undersigned issued an order to show cause. Defendants have responded to the order to show

5

cause.3

6

Counsel for the defendants employed by CDCR, Deputy Attorney General Matthew Ross

7

Wilson, states that defendants are not plaintiff’s mental health clinicians. (ECF No. 285.)

8

Apparently for that reason, Mr. Wilson forwarded this court’s order to the litigation coordinator at

9

the prison where plaintiff is currently incarcerated “so that the report could be prepared.” Mr.

10

Wilson then states that he “did not receive the requested report by the February 6 deadline, and I

11

have had to follow up regarding its status.” Mr. Wilson concludes by stating: “I am informed

12

that the report has not been completed. I believe that an additional thirty days would be sufficient

13

for the report to be completed by Plaintiff’s clinicians and filed by my office.”
This court has a number of concerns regarding Mr. Wilson’s response. First, Mr. Wilson

14
15

appears to feel he bears little or no responsibility for the mental health report ordered by this

16

court. In the January 6 order, this court used language identical to that used by Chief Judge

17

Mueller in her May 18, 2017 order requiring a report on plaintiff’s mental health. (ECF Nos. 132,

18

281.) When the prison was unable to meet the deadline for providing the report ordered by Chief

19

Judge Mueller, the CDCR defendants counsel at that time, Deputy Attorney General William J.

20

Douglas, sought an extension of time. (ECF No. 136.) Mr. Douglas detailed his efforts in

21

attempting to comply with Chief Judge Mueller’s order. In granting the extension of time, Chief

22

Judge Mueller made clear that defendants were expected to file the report - “Defendants shall file

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiff makes essentially the same allegations regarding his medical care, among other things,
in the two cases covered by this order and, with few exceptions, files the same documents in both
cases. Therefore, the court has and will continue to issue the same orders in both cases. Unless
otherwise noted, the electronic filing numbers in the text refer to the docket in the 2008 case.
3

Defendant Haynes provided a response in the 2010 case. (ECF No. 361.) His counsel notes that
Mr. Haynes is not employed by CDCR and therefore does not have access to plaintiff’s mental
health clinicians. This court agrees that neither Mr. Haynes nor his counsel bear any
responsibility for the preparation of the report on plaintiff’s current mental health.
2

1

a response to the Court’s May 18, 2017 Order on or before July 1, 2017.” (ECF No. 139.) Mr.

2

Douglas, on behalf of defendants, then filed the mental health report. (ECF No. 143.) Given this

3

history, it is not unreasonable to expect that defendants’ current counsel would take the same

4

responsibility for responding to this court’s January 6 order. This court expects Mr. Wilson to

5

take that responsibility going forward.

6

Second, Mr. Wilson fails to provide any good cause for an extension of time. He simply

7

states that he “believes” an additional 30 days “would be sufficient.” This court recognizes that

8

preparation of the report may be time-consuming. Therefore, additional time will be permitted.

9

However, Mr. Wilson is warned that if the report cannot be filed within the time provided, he

10

must file a motion for an extension of time prior to the due date for the report and he must attempt

11

to make a showing of good cause for the additional time requested.
Finally, this court notes that plaintiff’s numerous motions to regain competency status are

12
13

redundant. To simplify the dockets, this court will dismiss all except plaintiff’s most recent

14

motions. Plaintiff is advised that he will not suffer any prejudice from this clarification of the

15

court’s dockets. If plaintiff made arguments in his prior motions that he has not repeated in his

16

most recent motions, this court will consider those prior arguments when it issues a

17

recommendation on plaintiff’s motion to regain competency status.

18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

19

1. Defendants’ counsel’s request for an extension of time to submit the mental health

20

report described in this court’s January 6 order is granted. Defendants’ counsel shall

21

file that report within thirty days of the filed date of this order.
2. Plaintiff’s motions to regain competency filed in Case No. 2:08-cv-0593 KJM DB P

22
23

(ECF Nos. 248, 249, 258, 263, and 264) are dismissed as redundant. The competency

24

issue in the 2008 case will proceed on plaintiff’s motion filed September 8, 2022 (ECF

25

No. 271).

26

////

27

////

28

////
3

1

3. Plaintiff’s motions to regain competency filed in Case No. 2:10-cv-2139 KJM DB P

2

(ECF Nos. 334, 340, 342, and 345) are dismissed as redundant. The competency issue

3

in the 2010 case will proceed on plaintiff’s motion filed November 28, 2022 (ECF No.

4

349).

5

Dated: February 28, 2023

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

DLB:9
DB prisoner inbox/civil rights/S/davi0593&2139.comp rpt eot

23
24
25
26
27
28
4