Thomas v. Stanislaus County et al
ORDER Dismissing Due Process Claim Following Receipt of Plaintiff's Notice of Willingness to Proceed only on Cognizable Exercise Claim signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 07/08/2011. (Flores, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DERRICK J. THOMAS,
CASE NO. 1:09-cv-02015-AWI-SKO PC
ORDER DISMISSING DUE PROCESS CLAIM
FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF PLAINTIFF’S
NOTICE OF WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED
ONLY ON COGNIZABLE EXERCISE CLAIM
STANISLAUS COUNTY, et al.,
(Docs. 9, 11, and 12)
Plaintiff Derrick J. Thomas, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 17, 2009. On February 1, 2011,
the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. (Doc.
8.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 3, 2011, and on June 14, 2011, the Court issued
an order finding that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim arising out of the denial of adequate outdoor
exercise. (Docs. 9, 11.) However, Plaintiff’s claim arising out of his placement in solitary
confinement was not cognizable, and the Court ordered Plaintiff to either file a second amended
complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on his exercise claim. (Doc. 11.)
On July 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that he is willing to proceed only on the exercise
claim. (Doc. 12.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s non-cognizable claim shall be dismissed and this action
shall proceed only on the exercise claim.
In his notice, Plaintiff also requests to amend his claim for compensatory and punitive
damages, if possible. While Plaintiff may not amend his complaint via his notice because a pleading
must be complete within itself, Local Rule 220, Plaintiff is not limited to the specific damages
amount set forth in his amended complaint, Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c); Z Channel Ltd. Partnership v.
Home Box Office, Inc., 921 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1991).
For the reasons set forth in the screening order filed on June 14, 2011, and in light of
Plaintiff’s notice that he is willing to proceed only on his cognizable exercise claim, it is HEREBY
This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed on March 3, 2011,
against Defendants Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors, Stanislaus County
Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Adam Christianson, Policy Manager Gina Leguria,
Captain William Duncan, Lieutenants Ronald Lloyd and Gregg Clifton, and Sergeant
M. White on Plaintiff’s due process claim arising out of the denial of adequate
outdoor exercise; and
Plaintiff’s due process claim arising out of his placement in solitary confinement is
dismissed for failure to state a claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 8, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?