Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Samuel anderson v. Matthew Tate

May 30, 2012

SAMUEL ANDERSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MATTHEW TATE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's second amended complaint filed April 18, 2012.

Named as defendants in the second amended complaint are Clark Kelso, Matthew Tate, Warden Gower, Dr. Swingle, Dr. Lee, Dr. Cummings, Dr. Pomozal, Dr. Royston, Psych Manager Stovall, Nurse Pearsall, H. Wagner, P. Stati, L. Lopez, K. Terry, C. Davis and Dr. Hoffman.

Plaintiff's second amended complaint states potentially cognizable claims against defendants Kelso, Swingle, Lee and Hoffman based on their alleged failure to respond to his complaints regarding inadequate pain medication. (Dkt. No. 40 at 3-6.)

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Warden Gower is liable for plaintiff's failure to receive adequate medical care because plaintiff "kept a handwritten copy of the letter, dated 1-15-12, about all the misdeeds which plaintiff experiencing at the hands of prison personnel." (Id. at 8.) It is unclear how plaintiff is claiming that defendant Gower is liable for his inadequate medical care or any other alleged deprivations based on the letter dated 1-15-12. Accordingly, the claims against defendant Gower should be dismissed.

Plaintiff next alleges that defendant Terry refused to process mail addressed to the Postmaster General, the Judicial Process Committee, Amnesty International and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care as confidential mail as required by California regulations. (Id. at 13.) Plaintiff alleges that under state regulations, his outgoing mail to these persons and agencies should have been treated as confidential mail.

Section 3142 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations sets forth the procedures for processing outgoing confidential mail. Under these procedures, the inmate shall present the mail unsealed to designated staff who will perform an inspection to make sure no prohibited material are enclosed.

Section 3141(c) of the Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations sets forth the persons and agencies with whom an inmate may correspond confidentially:

c) Persons and employees of persons with whom inmates may correspond confidentially and from whom inmates may receive

confidential correspondence include:

(1) All state and federal elected officials.

(2) All state and federal officials appointed by the governor or the President of the United States.

(3) All city, county, state and federal officials having responsibility for the inmate's present, prior or anticipated custody, parole or probation supervision.

(4) County agencies regarding child custody proceedings, as clearly identified in the communication and listed on the envelope.

(5) All state and federal judges and courts.

(6) An attorney at law, on active status or otherwise eligible to practice law, listed with a state bar association.

(7) All officials of a foreign consulate.

(8) The Secretary, Undersecretary, Chief Deputy Secretaries, Executive Director, Assistant Secretaries, Division Directors, Deputy Directors, Associate Directors, the Chief, Inmate Appeals, and the Lead Ombudsman's Office of the Department.

(9) A legitimate legal service organization that consists of an established group of attorneys involved in the representation of offenders in judicial ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.