Wiseman v. Cate, et al.

Filing 10

ORDER Finding Plaintiff States a Cognizable Claim of Deliberate Indifference Against Defendant Biter Only, and DISMISSING All Other Claims and Defendants From This Action for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim for Relief 1 , 8 , 9 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/18/14: This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for intitiation of service of process. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHESTER RAY WISEMAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00831-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFF STATES A
COGNIZABLE CLAIM OF DELIBERATE
INDIFFERENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT BITER
ONLY, AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS
AND DEFENDANTS FROM THE ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM
FOR RELIEF
[ECF Nos. 1, 8, 9]

Plaintiff Chester Ray Wiseman is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on June 2, 2014.

20

On October 3, 2014, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 1915, and found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference against Defendant

22

Martin D. Biter. The Court granted Plaintiff the option of filing a first amended complaint or

23

notifying the Court of his intent to proceed only on his claim against Defendant Biter.

24

On October 20, 2014, Plaintiff notified the Court is his intent to proceed against Defendant

25

Biter only.

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

For the reasons explained in the Court’s October 3, 2014, order, this action shall

3

proceed on Plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference based on the conditions of his

4

confinement against Defendant Biter;

5

2.

cognizable claim for relief; and

6
7
8
9
10

All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED from the action for failure to state a

3.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

November 18, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4.

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