Tina L O'Con v. John Katavich et al

Filing 10

ORDER directing that action proceed against Defendants, Pierce, King-Eddington and Nickell for unreasonable searches and unlawful arrest, and dismissing other claims and parties without prejudice re 1 , 6 , 9 . Defendants, John Katavich and Aagon Lucas terminated. Order referring matter back to Magistrate Judge to initiate service of process signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/16/2014. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

TINA L. O'CON,
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

JOHN KATAVICH, et al.,

14

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01321-AWI-SKO
ORDER DIRECTING THAT ACTION
PROCEED AGAINST DEFENDANTS
PIERCE, KING-EDDINGTON, AND
NICKELL FOR UNREASONABLE
SEARCHES AND UNLAWFUL ARREST,
AND DISMISSING OTHER CLAIMS AND
PARTIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

15

(Docs. 1, 6, and 9)

16

ORDER REFERRING MATTER BACK TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO INITIATE
SERVICE OF PROCESS

17

_____________________________________/

18
19

Plaintiff Tina L. O'Con, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights

20 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § on August 5, 2013. On November 26, 2013, the Magistrate Judge
21 screened Plaintiff’s complaint and determined that it stated cognizable claims for relief against
22 Defendant Paul Pierce for unlawful arrest and unlawful search in violation of the Fourth
23 Amendment of the United States Constitution; and against Defendants T. King-Eddington and R.
24 Nickell for an unreasonable strip search in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States
25 Constitution. The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff's complaint did not state any other claims
26 for relief against any other parties. Plaintiff was ordered to either file an amended complaint or
27 notify the Court of her willingness to proceed against Defendants Pierce, King-Eddington, and
28 Nickell on those claims found to be cognizable.

1

On December 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that she does not wish to file an

2 amended complaint, and wishes to proceed with those claims found cognizable.

(Doc. 9.)

3 However, Plaintiff requests that her claims found not cognizable "be reserved to amend at a later
4 date made upon a showing." (Doc. 9, 1:27-28.)
5

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

6

1.

This action shall proceed against Defendant Pierce for unlawful arrest and

7

unreasonable searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment and against

8

Defendants King-Eddington and Nickell for unreasonable search in violation of the

9

Fourth Amendment;

10

2.

All other claims are dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim;

11

3.

Defendants John Katavich and Aagon Lucas are dismissed from this action for
failure to state a claim;1 and

12
13

4.

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

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 Dated: January 16, 2014

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

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

1

While the claims against these Defendants are dismissed without prejudice, any attempt to amend the complaint at a
later date must comply with all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 15(c), as well as the discovery and
scheduling order issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.

2