Ethridge v. Childs et al

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING 18 Findings and Recommendations (1) Finding Cognizable Claim; (2) Finding Service of Second Amended Complaint Appropriate, and (3) Forwarding Service Documents to Plaintiff for Completion and Return Within Thirty Days, signed by Dist rict Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/3/2013. Service is appropriate for S. Childs, Hernandez. Clerk to send plaintiff: 2 Summons, 2 USM-285 Forms, and 1 copy of the 17 Second Amended Complaint filed on 5/2/2013. (Case Management Deadline: 8/8/2013). (Attachments: # 1 USM Instructions and Summons)(Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CARL ETHRIDGE, CASE No. 1:10-cv-01962-LJO-MJS (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (1) FINDING COGNIZABLE CLAIM; (2) FINDING SERVICE OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT APPROPRIATE, AND (3) FORWARDING SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF FOR COMPLETION AND RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS Defendants. (ECF. No. 18) 12 13 v. 14 S. CHILDS, et al., 15 16 / 17 18 19 Plaintiff Carl Ethridge is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 20 in this civil rights action filed October 20, 2010 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 21 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 22 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern 23 District of California. 24 On June 3, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 25 that Plaintiff should proceed on the Second Amended Complaint Eighth Amendment 26 conditions of confinement claim seeking damages against Defendants Hernandez and 27 Childs; all other claims and Defendant CDCR Secretary should be dismissed with 28 prejudice; and service should be initiated on Defendants Hernandez and Childs. (ECF 1 1 No. 18.) The fourteen day deadline to file objection to the findings and 2 recommendations was June 21, 2013, and Plaintiff did not object or otherwise respond 3 to the findings and recommendations. 4 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review 5 of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and 6 recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. 2013 (ECF No. 18) in full; 9 10 The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on June 3, 2. Plaintiff shall proceed on the Second Amended Complaint Eighth 11 Amendment conditions of confinement claim seeking damages against 12 Defendants Hernandez and Childs; 13 3. Defendant CDCR Secretary are dismissed with prejudice; 14 15 All other claims asserted in the Second Amended Complaint and 4. Service shall be initiated on the following Defendants: 16 A. HERNANDEZ, Associate Warden, California Substance Abuse and 17 Treatment Facility - Corcoran State Prison; 18 S. CHILDS, Correctional Lieutenant, California Substance Abuse and 19 Treatment Facility - Corcoran State Prison; 20 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Plaintiff two (2) USM-285 forms, 21 two (2) summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an 22 instruction sheet and a copy of the Second Amended Complaint filed May 23 2, 2013; 24 6. Within thirty (30) days from service of this order Plaintiff shall complete 25 and return to the Court the Notice of Submission of Documents along with 26 the following documents: 27 a. Completed summons; 28 b. One completed USM-285 form for each Defendant listed above; 2 and 1 c. 2 Three (3) copies of the endorsed Second Amended Complaint filed May 2, 2013; and 3 7. 4 Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court shall direct the 5 United States Marshal to serve the above-named Defendants pursuant to 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: July 3, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?