Simmons v. Adams et al

Filing 21

ORDER Directing Action to Proceed on Eighth Amendment Claim Against Defendant Sanders, Dismissing Defendant Cruz and Other Claims, and Referring Matter Back to Magistrate Judge for Further Proceedings re 12 , 19 , 20 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/8/11. A. Cruz terminated. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01259-LJO-SKO PC
ORDER DIRECTING ACTION TO PROCEED
ON EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM
AGAINST DEFENDANT SANDERS,
DISMISSING DEFENDANT CRUZ AND
OTHER CLAIMS, AND REFERRING
MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

v.
DERAL G. ADAMS, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

(Docs. 12, 19, and 20)

15
/
16
17

Plaintiff Melvin Joseph Simmons, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

18

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 14, 2010. On June 22, 2011, the

19

Court screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that it states

20

an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Sanders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a);

21

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

22

550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007). However, the Court found that no other claims

23

were cognizable. Plaintiff was ordered to either file a second amended complaint or notify the Court

24

of his willingness to proceed only on his cognizable claim. On July 29, 2011, Plaintiff notified the

25

Court that he is willing to proceed on the claim found to be cognizable in the screening order.

26

Accordingly, in light of the screening order and Plaintiff’s election to proceed on his

27

cognizable claim, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

28

///
1

1

1.

2

This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed January 27, 2011,
on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Sanders;

3

2.

Defendant Cruz and Plaintiff’s other claims are dismissed from this action; and

4

3.

This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to initiate the service of process

5

phase.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated:
b9ed48

August 8, 2011

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2