Jaimes v. Barnes et al

Filing 24

ORDER Finding Service of Process is Appropriate on Plaintiff's Claim of Deliberate Indifference Against Defendants Barnes, Neighbors, Finnigan and Kauffman, DISMISSING All Other Claims and Defendants, and Referring the Matter Back to the Magistrate Judge for Initiation of Service of Process signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/29/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JUAN JAIMES,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
DR. ROBERT J. BARNES, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

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

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00952-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF PROCESS IS
APPROPRIATE ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM OF
DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE AGAINST
DEFENDANTS BARNES, NEIGHBORS,
FINNIGAN AND KAUFFMAN, DISMISSING ALL
OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS, AND
REFERRING THE MATTER BACK TO THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR INITIATION OF
SERVICE OF PROCESS
[ECF Nos. 21, 22, 23]

Plaintiff Juan Jaimes is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20

On June 5, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 1915A and found that it stated a claim for against Defendants Barnes, Neighbors, Finnigan and

22

Kauffman for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

23

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

24

U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). However, the Court found

25

that the complaint did not state any other claims for relief. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file an

26

amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified or notify the Court he is willing to proceed only

27

on his cognizable claim. On June 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice stating he does not intend to amend

28

and he is willing to proceed only on his cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants
1

1

Barnes, Neighbors, Finnigan and Kauffman.1

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

This action shall proceed against Defendants Barnes, Neighbors, Finnigan and

4

Kauffman on Plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the

5

Eighth Amendment; and
2.

6
7

cognizable claim for relief; and
3.

8
9

All other Defendants and claims are dismissed from the action for failure to state a

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

by the United States marshal.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

June 29, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

In the June 26, 2015, notice Plaintiff contends his notice of willingness to proceed with the cognizable claim is
conditioned on the stipulation that after Plaintiff completes discovery he can add new defendants and claims. Plaintiff is
advised that the Court cannot and does not grant Plaintiff’s requested stipulation as the right to amend the complaint is
governed by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any request to amend is premature at this juncture.

2