David Estrada v. Vanderpoel et al
ORDER That This Action Proceed Only on Plaintiff's Claims Against Defendants Vanderpoel, Maxfield and Sexton for Violation of Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and All Other Claims and Defendants be Dismissed signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 1/9/2017. R.L. Briggs, D. Davey, J. Pasion, F.R. Pimentel, M. Voong, K.J. Allen and J. Beard terminated. (Jessen, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
J. VANDERPOEL, et al.,
ORDER THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED
ONLY ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
VANDERPOEL, MAXFIELD, AND
SEXTON FOR VIOLATION OF FIFTH,
EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH
David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed the
Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.)
On July 21, 2016, (and again on September 26, 2016) Plaintiff consented to Magistrate
Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made
an appearance. (ECF No. 9, 10.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules
of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in
the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix
On December 20, 2016, this Court issued a screening order pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
' 1915A and found that it states cognizable claims for violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments against Defendants Vanderpoel, Maxfield and Sexton relating to
Plaintiff’s R classification, confinement in the SHU, and “debriefing” requirements.1 (ECF No.
13.) The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to sate any other cognizable claims against any
other Defendants. (Id.)
Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint or notify the Court that he is
willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the Court, subject to an order that
the non-cognizable claims be dismissed from the action. (Id.) On December 30, 2016, Plaintiff
filed a notice informing the Court that he is willing to proceed only on the cognizable Fifth,
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims and was willing to dismiss the remaining
Defendants. (ECF No. 14.)
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
This action proceeds only on Plaintiff’s cognizable claims for violation of the
Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments against Defendants Vanderpoel,
Maxfield and Sexton; and
All remaining claims and Defendants are dismissed from this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 9, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Although the screening order made certain references to a “First” Amendment claim (ECF No. 13, pp.
1:13, 12:12, 13:20), this was a typographical error. The Court discussed and found a cognizable Fifth Amendment
claim. (ECF No. 13, pp. 11:16-12:9.)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?