Davis v. Walker et al

Filing 191

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/18/2017 ORDERING the plaintiff's mental health clinicians to file within fourteen (14) days, a report on the current status of the plaintiff's mental health; REFERRING this matter to S ujean Park, Pro Bono Coordinator for the Eastern District of California, to confirm arrangements with a medical expert who shall be appointed to conduct an independent medical examination of the plaintiff and to report the findings of said examination to the Court; ORDERING the defendants to notify the Court at least thirty (30) days in advance of any planned or emergency change in the plaintiff's housing. (cc: VDRP) (Michel, G.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNARD LEE DAVIS, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. JAMES WALKER, et al., 15 16 No. 2:08-cv-0593 KJM DB Defendants. ___________________________________ 17 18 KENNARD LEE DAVIS, 19 No. 2:10-cv-2139 KJM DB Plaintiff, 20 21 22 v. JAMES WALKER, et al., ORDER Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 1 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis with the above-captioned 2 civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding in both actions through a 3 guardian ad litem, Ronnie Tolliver. See ECF Nos. 40, 81.1 4 In accordance with this court’s answer to a petition for writ of mandamus filed by 5 plaintiff in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, ECF Nos. 126, 185, IT IS 6 HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. Within fourteen days from the date of this order, plaintiff’s mental health 8 clinicians shall file a report on the current status of plaintiff’s mental health, 9 including but not limited to whether he is currently under a Keyhea2 order for 10 involuntary medication, his current Mental Health Services Delivery System 11 designation (CCCMS, EOP, or inpatient), his most recent mental health 12 inpatient hospitalization, his mental health prognosis, and any other matters 13 relevant to plaintiff’s ability to litigate this action. 14 2. These matters are referred to Sujean Park, Pro Bono Coordinator for the 15 Eastern District of California, to confirm arrangements with a medical expert 16 who shall be appointed as provided by Federal Rule of Evidence 706 to 17 conduct an independent medical examination of plaintiff and report to the court 18 on the current status of plaintiff’s physical health, including any current need 19 for treatment, physical therapy, pain medication or other treatment, in the areas 20 of injury allegedly sustained by plaintiff that are the subject of the operative 21 complaints in these actions, ECF Nos. 1 and 1, including the following: 22 a. The fingers of plaintiff’s left hand on which he had surgery in February 23 2008; 24 25 26 b. Plaintiff’s lower back; 1 Throughout this order citations to documents filed in the court’s Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system are first to the record in Case No. 2:08-cv-0593 KJM DB and second to the record in Case No. 2:10-cv-2139 KJM DB. 27 2 28 Keyhea v. Rushen, 178 Cal.App.3d 526 (1986). 2 1 c. Plaintiff’s right knee; and 2 d. Plaintiff’s neck, back, shoulder, hip, and spinal cord. 3 3. In communications leading to the issuance of this order, Ms. Park has informed 4 the court she has focused her search for an independent medical expert on the 5 San Diego area in view of plaintiff’s current incarceration at R. J. Donovan 6 Correctional Facility. In order to facilitate Ms. Park’s further efforts, the court 7 requests that, absent a medical or mental health emergency, defendants notify 8 the court at least thirty days in advance of any planned transfer of plaintiff and 9 that defendants also notify the court promptly of any other emergency change 10 11 to plaintiff’s housing placement. DATED: May 18, 2017. 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 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?