York v. Stewart et al

Filing 17

ORDER DISMISSING Certains Claims and Defendants, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/6/17. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

REGINALD RAY YORK,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 1:15-cv-01828-DAD-BAM
ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS
AND DEFENDANTS

v.
M. STEWART, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff Reginald Ray York is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28

20

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On June 22, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and found

22

that it stated the following cognizable claims: (1) against defendant Garcia for excessive use of

23

force; (2) against defendant Neighbors for failure to protect plaintiff from the use of force; and (3)

24

against defendants Garcia, Neighbors, and Stewart for failure to decontaminate plaintiff’s cell.

25

(Doc. No. 8.) Plaintiff was ordered to either file an amended complaint or notify the court that he

26

did not wish to file any amended complaint and was willing to proceed on the claims set forth in

27

his original complaint which had been found to be cognizable. (Id.) Thereafter, plaintiff sought

28

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order by the undersigned (Doc. No. 9), and on
1

1

November 3, 2016, this court denied reconsideration. (Doc. No. 10). The assigned magistrate

2

judge again granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint or notify the court of his

3

willingness to proceed only on his cognizable claims. (Doc. No. 11.) On November 18, 2016,

4

plaintiff notified the court that he did not intend to file an amended complaint and wished to

5

proceed only with the aforementioned claims defendants against Garcia, Neighbors, and Stewart.

6

(Doc. No. 12.)

7

Accordingly,

8

1. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s December 7, 2015 complaint (Doc. No. 1) with

9

respect to the following claims: (1) against defendant Garcia for excessive force; (2)

10

against defendant Neighbors for failure to protect plaintiff from the use of force; and

11

(3) against defendants Garcia, Neighbors, and Stewart for failure to decontaminate

12

plaintiff’s cell.

13

2. All remaining claims are dismissed from this action;

14

3. Defendants C. Chen, R. Hutchinson, J. Lewis, C. Pfeiffer, N. Karlow, and S. Rimbach

15
16

are dismissed from this action; and
4. The case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings

17
18
19

consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 6, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2