David Estrada v. Vanderpoel et al

Filing 15

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ESTRADA, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, vs. J. VANDERPOEL, et al., 15 Defendants. 1:16-cv-00673-EPG (PC) ORDER THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED ONLY ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS VANDERPOEL, MAXFIELD, AND SEXTON FOR VIOLATION OF FIFTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 A(k)(3). 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 1 1 Plaintiff’s R classification, confinement in the SHU, and “debriefing” requirements.1 (ECF No. 2 13.) The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to sate any other cognizable claims against any 3 other Defendants. (Id.) 4 Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint or notify the Court that he is 5 willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the Court, subject to an order that 6 the non-cognizable claims be dismissed from the action. (Id.) On December 30, 2016, Plaintiff 7 filed a notice informing the Court that he is willing to proceed only on the cognizable Fifth, 8 Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims and was willing to dismiss the remaining 9 Defendants. (ECF No. 14.) 10 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. This action proceeds only on Plaintiff’s cognizable claims for violation of the 12 Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments against Defendants Vanderpoel, 13 Maxfield and Sexton; and 14 2. All remaining claims and Defendants are dismissed from this action. 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 9, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 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.) 2

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?