Davis v. Walker et al

Filing 305

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/29/2023 ORDERING, within 20 days, defendants shall file a response to plaintiff's 271 motion to be restored to competency status. Within 20 days after service of defendants' response, plaintiff may file a reply. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
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 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with these civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff makes essentially the same allegations regarding 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. //// 1 1 Pending before this court are plaintiff’s motion to be reinstated to competency status (ECF No. 2 271); motions to appoint an expert (ECF Nos. 294, 303, 304); motions to depose the author of the 3 recently filed report regarding plaintiff’s mental status (ECF Nos. 298, 302); and motion to unseal 4 the report of Dr. Mannis filed in these proceedings on March 19, 2018 (ECF No. 299). The background of proceedings regarding plaintiff’s competency and his representation in 5 6 the present actions is set out in this court’s January 6, 2023 order and will not be repeated here. 7 (See ECF No. 281.) The issue currently before the court is whether or not plaintiff should be 8 declared competent to represent herself2 in this case. In the January 6 order, this court directed 9 plaintiff’s mental health clinicians to “file a report on the current status of plaintiff’s mental 10 health, whether he is currently under a Keyhea order for involuntary medication, his current 11 Mental Health Services Delivery System designation (CCCMS, EOP, or inpatient), his most 12 recent mental health inpatient hospitalization(s), his mental health prognosis, and any other 13 matters relevant to plaintiff’s ability to litigate this action.” On June 6, 2023, defendants’ counsel 14 filed a declaration of Stephanie Neumann, M.D., CDCR’s Regional Administrator of the 15 Statewide Mental Health Program-Region II, in response to this court’s order. 16 This court finds a response from defendants is the appropriate next step in addressing 17 plaintiff’s motion to be returned to competency status. In addition to addressing the merits of 18 plaintiff’s motion, defendants shall propose a roadmap for going forward. Plaintiff will be 19 permitted to file a reply, if she wishes. This court will consider plaintiff’s remaining motions 20 after receiving briefing on plaintiff’s motion to be reinstated to competency status. 21 Accordingly, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 22 1. Within twenty days of the date of this order, defendants shall file a response to 23 plaintiff’s motion to be restored to competency status. That response shall include a proposed 24 roadmap for resolution of the competency issue. 25 //// 26 //// 27 28 2 In the recent mental health report, the author indicated that plaintiff uses she/her pronouns. If that does not reflect plaintiff’s wishes, she shall so inform the court. 2 1 2 2. Within twenty days after service of defendants’ response, plaintiff may file a reply. Dated: June 29, 2023 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 DLB:9 DB prisoner inbox/civil rights/R/davi0593&2139.brfing re comp 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?