Turner v. California Forensic Medical Group et al

Filing 60

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 12/23/2011 DENYING, without prejudice 27 Motion for Declaratory Judgment. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY R. TURNER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. CIV S-09-3040-CMK-P

vs.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL
GROUP, et al.,

15
Defendants.
16

/

17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for declaratory judgment,

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (Doc. 27).

20

This civil rights action stems from plaintiff’s claim of inadequate medical care

21

during his time at the Yolo County Jail. Several of the defendants have appeared in this action,

22

but others have not yet answered the complaint. As such, no scheduling order has issued, and

23

discovery has not been undertaken.

24

///

25

///

26

///
1

1

Plaintiff has filed a motion for declaratory judgment, seeking a judgment in his

2

favor and a declaration from the court that the defendants violated his rights. A federal district

3

court’s exercise of jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, is

4

discretionary, even when the suit otherwise satisfies the prerequisites to establish subject matter

5

jurisdiction. See Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Dizol, 133 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.1998) (en

6

banc). Here, plaintiff’s motion is tantamount to a request the court find he has proven his § 1983

7

claims that the defendants have violated his Constitutional rights. Such a request equates to a

8

grant of summary judgment for plaintiff, and not a request for declaratory judgment. To that

9

extent, plaintiff’s motion is premature and fails to meet the pleading requirements. A motion for

10

summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact

11

regarding specific claims raised in the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56. The party moving

12

for summary judgment on the grounds that a fact cannot be genuinely disputed must support that

13

assertion by citations to “particular parts of materials in the record . . . .” Id. Here, plaintiff does

14

not provide any support for his assertions of inadequate medical care, such as a declaration or

15

discovery responses. Thus, he has not met the pleading requirements for a motion for summary

16

judgment.

17

To the extent plaintiff’s motion could be construed as one for judgment on the

18

pleadings, such a motion is also premature. A motion for judgment on the pleadings is properly

19

filed “[a]fter the pleadings are closed . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(c). Here, pleadings are not

20

closed, as several defendants have not answered the complaint and the time for doing so has not

21

yet expired.

22

The undersigned finds no support in the record for plaintiff’s motions at this time.

23

If, after pleadings are closed, plaintiff has sufficient support for his claims, he may file a new

24

motion. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, to review the local rules, a copy of which has been

25

previously provided, to ensure he files his motion with the proper supporting documentation.

26

See Local Rule 260.
2

1
2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for declaratory
judgment (Doc. 27) is denied without prejudice.

3
4
5
6

DATED: December 23, 2011
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3