Dawson v. Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 79

ORDER RE Plaintiff's Notice that he does not wish to proceed against Defendants Arnett and Flores on Retaliation Claims in this case 78 ; Order for this case to continue to Proceed Only Against Defendants Johnson, Guzman, Gonzales and Sheldon on Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment Claims for Unreasonable Unclothed Body Searches, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 02/01/2018. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ISSAC DA’BOUR DAWSON,

12
13
14
15

1:15-cv-01867-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE
THAT HE DOES NOT WISH TO
PROCEED AGAINST DEFENDANTS
ARNETT AND FLORES ON
RETALIATION CLAIMS IN THIS CASE
(ECF No. 78.)

Plaintiff,
vs.
CDCR, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO
CONTINUE TO PROCEED ONLY
AGAINST DEFENDANTS JOHNSON,
GUZMAN, GONZALES AND SHELDON
ON PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH
AMENDMENT CLAIMS FOR
UNREASONABLE UNCLOTHED BODY
SEARCHES

16
17
18
19
20
21

Issac Da’bour Dawson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

22

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds

23

with Plaintiff’s original Complaint, filed on December 14, 2015, against defendants Johnson,

24

Guzman, Gonzales and Sheldon on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims for unreasonable

25

unclothed body searches. (ECF No. 1.)

26

On January 8, 2018, the court rescreened the original Complaint and found that Plaintiff

27

states cognizable retaliation claims against defendants Arnett and Flores. (ECF No. 72.) The

28

court issued an order directing Plaintiff to notify the court whether he (1) wishes to proceed
1

1

with the retaliation claims against defendants Arnett and Flores, or (2) does not wish to proceed

2

with the retaliation claims against defendants Arnett and Flores, and is willing to proceed only

3

against defendants Johnson, Guzman, Gonzales and Sheldon on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment

4

claims for unreasonable unclothed body searches. (Id.)

5

On January 29, 2018, Plaintiff notified the court that he does not wish to proceed with

6

the retaliation claims against defendants Arnett and Flores in this case. (ECF No. 78.) Plaintiff

7

expresses his intent to file a new case on the retaliation claims against defendants Arnett and

8

Flores after this case is resolved. (Id.)

9

In compliance with Plaintiff’s wishes, the court shall not add defendants Arnett and

10

Flores to this case. This case shall continue to proceed only against defendants Johnson,

11

Guzman, Gonzales and Sheldon on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims for unreasonable

12

unclothed body searches. However, Plaintiff is cautioned that if he waits too long to file a

13

new case against defendants Arnett and Flores for events occurring in 2014, the new case

14

may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

15

possibility before deciding to wait until this case is over to file his new case.

Plaintiff should consider this

16

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this case shall continue to

17

proceed only against defendants Johnson, Guzman, Gonzales and Sheldon on Plaintiff’s Fourth

18

Amendment claims for unreasonable unclothed body searches.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 1, 2018

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2