(PC) Ardds v. Martin et al

Filing 49

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/18/2022 ORDERING pursuant to the district court's 7/19/2022 order, this action proceeds solely on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against members of the IDTT committee, identif ied by plaintiff as defendants Kieu, Lundgren and Bogacs. The court STRIKES plaintiff's references to defendants Martin and Martel and all other claims not permitted by the district court's prior order 48 , and defendants Kieu, Lundgren and Bogacs are relieved of any obligation to respond thereto. Defendant Kieu shall file a responsive pleading within 21 days from the date of this order. (Yin, K)

Case 2:20-cv-00133-TLN-KJN Document 49 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTOINE L. ARDDS,

12
13
14

No. 2:20-cv-0133 TLN KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

KENNETH MARTIN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is before the court. As set

19

forth below, those portions of the amended pleading that do not comply with the district court’s

20

July 19, 2022 order are stricken. The undersigned finds that plaintiff states potentially cognizable

21

Eighth Amendment claims as to defendants Kieu, Lundgren, and Bogacs, who served on the

22

IDTT committee.

23

Background

24

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part, and

25

plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint raising only Eighth Amendment

26

claims based on those allegations set forth in grievance CHCF-HC-20-000548 against only those

27

individuals who were part of the IDTT referenced therein. (ECF No. 47 at 2; see also ECF No.

28

43 at 23-24.) The grievance requested that the hearing officer review unit footage from August
1

Case 2:20-cv-00133-TLN-KJN Document 49 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 4
1

27, 2019, through September 11, 2019. (ECF No. 36-4 at 66.) The grievance was dated

2

September 12, 2019. (Id.)

3

Plaintiff has now filed a second amended complaint in which he identifies the members of

4

the IDTT Committee referenced in grievance CHCF-HC-20-000548 as Kieu, Lundgren, and

5

Bogacs. (ECF No. 48 at 8.) Only defendant Kieu has been served and appeared in this action.

6

Discussion

7

Despite the court’s limiting order, plaintiff now alleges that defendants Martin and Martel

8

are liable based on their supervisory roles, and contends that the grievance was sufficient to put

9

prison officials on notice of plaintiff’s allegations, reiterates his retaliation claims, attempts to add

10

an ADA claim and refers to other grievances. Plaintiff claims that defendants Martel and Martin

11

were ineffective and failed to hold employees or staff accountable, despite plaintiff’s numerous

12

grievances. (ECF No. 48 at 13-14.)

13

However, in resolving the motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds, the

14

district court determined that this case is limited to the Eighth Amendment allegations raised in

15

grievance CHCF-HC-20-000548 solely as to those individuals who were members of the IDTT

16

committee. (ECF No. 43 at 23-24.) Defendants Martin and Martel were not members of the

17

IDTT Committee referenced in plaintiff’s appeal and therefore prison officials were not put on

18

notice of plaintiff’s claims against Martin and Martel through grievance CHCF-HC-20-000548. 1

19

In such grievance, plaintiff did not include any additional facts concerning supervisory personnel

20

involvement or lack of action on their part concerning the alleged deprivation of mental health

21

services by the IDTT Committee members. In his objections to the findings and

22

recommendations addressing exhaustion, plaintiff did not object that such supervisory claims

23

were omitted.

24

////

25
26
27
28

1

Indeed, after he filed the instant action plaintiff exhausted his claims as to defendant Martin in a
different grievance, CHCF HC-19-002669, and the district court adopted this court’s findings that
plaintiff’s amended complaint did not raise new claims and therefore plaintiff was required to
have exhausted such claims before he filed the instant action. (See ECF No. 43 at 17-20.) Thus,
plaintiff is required to pursue such claims against defendant Martin in a new action.
2

Case 2:20-cv-00133-TLN-KJN Document 49 Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 4
1

The district court determined what claims were exhausted through grievance CHCF-HC-

2

20-000548, and limited plaintiff’s amended pleading to those claims raised solely as to the

3

members of the IDTT committee. Thus, the undersigned finds that plaintiff’s second amended

4

complaint applies solely to those members of the IDTT involved in the Eighth Amendment

5

allegations raised in grievance CHCF-HC-20-000548, now identified as Kieu, Lundgren, and

6

Bogacs, as previously ordered, and strikes references to other defendants or claims not permitted

7

by the district court order (ECF No. 47).

8

Screening

9

The second amended complaint states potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claims

10

for relief against defendants Kieu, Lundgren, and Bogacs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28

11

U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations of the second amended complaint are proven, plaintiff has a

12

reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action.

13

By separate order, the court will direct service of process on defendants Lundgren and

14

Bogacs. Defendant Kieu shall file a responsive pleading within twenty-one days. In light of the

15

above orders, defendants Kieu, Lundgren, and Bogacs are relieved of any obligation to respond to

16

plaintiff’s allegations concerning retaliation or other putative claims not permitted by the district

17

court’s order.

18

Conclusion

19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1. Pursuant to the district court’s July 19, 2022 order, this action proceeds solely on

21

plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against members of the IDTT committee, identified by

22

plaintiff as defendants Kieu, Lundgren and Bogacs.
2. The court strikes plaintiff’s references to defendants Martin and Martel and all other

23
24

claims not permitted by the district court’s prior order (ECF No. 48), and defendants Kieu,

25

Lundgren and Bogacs are relieved of any obligation to respond thereto.

26

////

27

////

28

////
3

Case 2:20-cv-00133-TLN-KJN Document 49 Filed 11/21/22 Page 4 of 4
1

3. Defendant Kieu shall file a responsive pleading within twenty-one days from the date

2

of this order.

3

Dated: November 18, 2022

4
5
6
7

/ardd0133.2d.AC

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4