Villescas v. Dotson et al

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants, and REFERRING Matter Back to Magistrate Judge for Initiation of Service of Process 10 , 13 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/17/14. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALBERTO VILLESCAS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
M.T. DOTSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No.: 1:12-cv-02068-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS, AND REFERRING MATTER
BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR
INITIATION OF SERVICE OF PROCESS
[ECF Nos. 10, 13]

Plaintiff Alberto Villescas is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff initiated this action on December 21, 2012. On December 16, 2013, the Court

19
20

screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable

21

claim against Defendant D. Fisher for deliberate indifference to a serious risk of harm, against

22

Defendants C. Hernandez, M.T. Dotson, J. Madrigal and W. Tucker for retaliation, and against

23

Defendant W. Tucker for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court granted

24

Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his intent to proceed on

25

the claims found to be cognizable. On January 15, 2014, Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to

26

proceed on the claims found to be cognizable. Therefore, the Court will recommend dismissal of the

27

other claims and defendants that were found not cognizable.

28

///
1

1
2

Accordingly, based on Plaintiff=s notice, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

3

serious risk of harm, against Defendants C. Hernandez, M.T. Dotson, J. Madrigal, and

4

W. Tucker for retaliation, and against Defendants W. Tucker for excessive force in

5
6

violation of the Eighth Amendment.
2.

7
8
9

This action shall proceed against Defendant D. Fisher for deliberate indifference to a

Plaintiff=s claim arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act is dismissed is
dismissed for failure to state a claim;

3.

Does 1 through 50 are dismissed for failure to state any claims against them; and

4.

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

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

January 17, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2