Johnson v. Frauenheim et al

Filing 10

ORDER DIRECTING that Action Proceed on Claims Found to be Cognizable in First Screening Order, and Dismissing other Claims and Parties; ORDER REFERRING Matter back to Magistrate Judge to Initiate Service of Process, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 07/9/15. Defendants: Beard, J.C. Herrera, J.A. Mendez, A. Shimmin, J. Woodard, R. Fisher and Scott Frauenheim (Warden) terminated. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

LACEDRIC JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

v.
SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING THAT ACTION
PROCEED ON CLAIMS FOUND TO BE
COGNIZABLE IN FIRST SCREENING
ORDER, AND DISMISSING OTHER
CLAIMS AND PARTIES
(Docs. 7-9)
ORDER REFERRING MATTER BACK TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO INITIATE
SERVICE OF PROCESS

15
16
_____________________________________/
17
18

Plaintiff Lacedric Johnson (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19 pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 14, 2014. Plaintiff
20 filed an amended complaint as a matter of right on November 24, 2014. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).
21

On June 29, 2015, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint and

22 determined that it stated for monetary damages against Defendants Santos and Salas for violation
23 of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause; against Defendant Santos for violation of the
24 Fourth Amendment; against Defendants Santos, Leon, Espinosa, Benavides, Bejinez, Erickson,
25 Hill, Kennedy, Lopez, Luna, Ramirez, Salas, Trinidad, and Deshazo for violation of the Eighth
26 Amendment arising out of the use of excessive physical force; and against Defendant Bejinez,
27 Trinidad, Deshazo, George, Hansen, Liebold, Sharp, and Hoggard for violation of the Eighth
28 Amendment arising out of the denial of adequate medical care.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The

1 Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s amended complaint did not state any other claims for relief
2 against any other parties; and Plaintiff was ordered to either file a second amended complaint or
3 notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on those claims found to be cognizable.
4

On July 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that he does not wish to file a second

5 amended complaint and he is willing to proceed only on his cognizable claims. Plaintiff also
6 clarified that R. Newton is intended to be a defendant, in compliance with the order. Accordingly,
7 based on Plaintiff’s notice, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:
8

1.

This action, which limited to damages, shall proceed against (1) Defendants Santos

9

and Salas for violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause; (2)

10

Defendant Santos for violation of the Fourth Amendment; (3) Defendants Santos,

11

Leon, Espinosa, Benavides, Bejinez, Erickson, Hill, Kennedy, Lopez, Luna,

12

Ramirez, Salas, Trinidad, Deshazo, and Newton for violation of the Eighth

13

Amendment arising out of the use of excessive physical force; and (4) Defendant

14

Bejinez, Trinidad, Deshazo, George, Hansen, Liebold, Sharp, and Hoggard for

15

violation of the Eighth Amendment arising out of the denial of adequate medical

16

care;

17

2.

All other legal claims, including Plaintiff’s due process claim, 42 U.S.C. § 1985

18

claim, and state law claims, are dismissed from this action for failure to state a

19

claim;

20

3.

21

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

22
23
24

Defendants Beard, Frauenheim, Fisher, Shimmin, Herrera, Mendez, and Woodend

4.

Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are dismissed; and

5.
This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to initiate service of process
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

25

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

July 9, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26

.

27
28
2