Williams v. Lopez et al

Filing 12

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff To Provide Further Response (Doc. 11 ), Response Due Within 20 Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/16/2010. (Response due by 9/8/2010) (Scrivner, E)

1 2 3 4 5 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Lonnie Williams ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). On July 14, 2010, the Court ordered Plaintiff either to file an amended complaint or proceed only on claims found to be cognizable in the July 14, 2010 Order. The Court also found that Plaintiff had alleged six separate, unrelated claims, and further ordered Plaintiff to identify which claims Plaintiff wished to proceed with in this action. On August 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed notice with the Court of Plaintiff's willingness to proceed only on claims found to be cognizable, but did not specify which claims. The Court identified three claims as cognizable: 1) the April 18, 2010 excessive force incident involving Defendant J. Lopez; 2) the May 20, 2010 retaliatory denial of psychological treatment by Defendant Brewer; and 3) the February 27, 2010 retaliatory placement in administrative segregation by Defendant DaViega. These claims are unrelated and each must be filed in a separate action. Plaintiff failed to specify which claim Plaintiff wished to proceed with in this action. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is to identify which one of the above three claims Plaintiff wishes to retain in this action, within twenty days from the date 1 v. (Doc. 11) J. LOPEZ, et al., RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 20 DAYS Defendants. / LONNIE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:10-CV-00952-LJO-DLB PC ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of service of this order. The two other claims that are not retained in this action will be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in a separate action. Failure to comply with this order will result in the Court selecting which claim will proceed in this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 77e0d6

August 16, 2010

/s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2