Leos v. Rasey et al

Filing 19

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 18 Request for Screening of the Second Amended Complaint and FINDING Cognizable Claims; Response Due in Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/26/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES LEOS,

12
13
14

Case No. 1:14-cv-02029-LJO-JLT (PC)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST
FOR SCREENING OF THE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT and FINDING COGNIZABLE
CLAIMS

RASEY, et al.,
(Docs. 17, 18)

15

Defendants.
RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

16
17
18
19

On August 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 17) which
Defendants again request be screened (Doc. 18).
The Court has screened the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A

20

and finds that all of the claims Plaintiff attempted to state therein are cognizable, to wit: for

21

deliberate indifference to his serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment and

22

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against Defendants Officer Rasey and Sergeant

23

Stonestreet; and for negligence under California law against Defendant Officer Rasey. Fed. R.

24

Civ. P. 8(a); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512-15 (2002); Austin v. Terhune, 367

25

F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004); Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 754 (9th Cir. 2003); Galbraith

26

v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2002).

27
28

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion for screening of
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, filed August 10, 2015 (Doc. 18), is GRANTED; all
1

1

claims Plaintiff asserts therein are cognizable; and within thirty days of the date of service of this

2

order, Defendants are to file a response to the Second Amended Complaint.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 26, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2