Watts v. Nguyen, et al.

Filing 12

ORDER Directing that Action Proceed Against Defendants Nguyen and Rouch for Violation of the First Amendment and Against Defendants Nguyen, Rouch, Nareddy, Beregovskays, and Macias for Violation of the Eighth Amendment, and (2) Dismissing Equal Protection Claim; ORDER Referring Matter Back to Magistrate Judge to Initiate Service, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/22/14. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

TIMOTHY WATTS,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

Case No. 1:13-cv-00917-AWI-SKO (PC)
ORDER (1) DIRECTING THAT ACTION
PROCEED AGAINST DEFENDANTS
NGUYEN AND ROUCH FOR VIOLATION
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND
AGAINST DEFENDANTS NGUYEN,
ROUCH, NAREDDY, BEREGOVSKAYS,
AND MACIAS FOR VIOLATION OF THE
EIGHTH AMENDMENT, AND (2)
DISMISSING EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAIM

v.
H. NGUYEN, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

(Docs. 1, 10, and 11)
17
ORDER REFERRING MATTER BACK TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO INITIATE
SERVICE OF PROCESS

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

_____________________________________/
Plaintiff Timothy Watts (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 17, 2013.
On May 9, 2014, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint and determined that
it stated cognizable claims for relief against Defendants Nguyen and Rouch for retaliation, in
violation of the First Amendment, and against Defendants Nguyen, Rouch, Nareddy,
Beregovskays, and Macias for denial of adequate medical care, in violation of the Eighth
Amendment.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

The Magistrate Judge found, however, that Plaintiff’s

complaint did not state a claim for denial of equal protection, in violation of the Fourteenth

1 Amendment. Plaintiff was ordered to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his
2 willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable.
3

On May 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that he does not wish to file an amended

4 complaint and he agrees to proceed only on the claims the Magistrate Judge found to be
5 cognizable.
6

Accordingly, based on Plaintiff’s notice, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

7

1.

This action shall proceed against Defendants Nguyen and Rouch for retaliation, in

8

violation of the First Amendment, and against Defendants Nguyen, Nareddy,

9

Rouch, Beregovskays, and Macias for denial of adequate medical care, in violation

10

of the Eighth Amendment;

11

2.

Plaintiff’s equal protection claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim; and

12

3.

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

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15 Dated: May 22, 2014

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

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