Crowder v. Castillo et al

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS for Service of Cognizable Claims and to DISMISS All Other Claims With Prejudice 14 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/6/17: Service is appropriate for A. Castillo, E. Gonzalez, P. Ibarra, Diaz. Clerk to send plaintiff: (4) Summons, (4) USM-285 Forms, and (1) Copy of the First Amended Complaint 12 , filed on September 19, 2016. (30-Day Deadline) (Attachments: # 1 PC USM Instructions Packet)(Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TRISTAIN CROWDER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 1:16-cv-00851-DAD-MJS v. A. CASTILLO, SGT. E. GONZALEZ. LT. C. DAVIS, and P. IBARRA, Defendants. 16 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SERVICE OF COGNIZABLE CLAIMS AND TO DISMISS ALL OTHER CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE (Doc. No. 14) 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 19 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States 21 District Court for the Eastern District of California. On November 8, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 23 recommendations, recommending service of plaintiff’s cognizable Eighth Amendment claims 24 against defendants Castillo, Gonzalez, Ibarra and Diaz, and dismissal of all other claims with 25 prejudice. (Doc. No. 14.) The findings and recommendations provided plaintiff with fourteen 26 days within which to file objections thereto. (Id.) Plaintiff has filed no objections to the findings 27 and recommendations and the time for doing so has passed. 28 ///// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 3 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Based on the foregoing, 5 1. The November 8, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 14) are adopted in 6 7 full; 2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive use of force 8 claim against defendant Castillo, and her Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim 9 against defendants Gonzalez, Ibarra, and Diaz; 10 11 12 3. All other claims asserted in plaintiff’s first amended complaint, and all other named defendants are dismissed from this action with prejudice, 4. Service shall be initiated on the following defendants: 13 A. CASTILLO – Correctional Officer at North Kern State Prison (“NKSP”) 14 E. GONZALEZ – Correctional Sergeant at NKSP 15 P. IBARRA – Correctional Officer at NKSP 16 DIAZ – Correctional Officer at NKSP 17 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff four (4) USM-285 forms, four (4) 18 summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a copy 19 of the first amended complaint filed September 19, 2016; 20 6. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return 21 to the court the Notice of Submission of Documents along with the following 22 documents: 23 a. One completed summons for each defendant listed above, 24 b. One completed USM-285 form for each Defendant listed above, 25 c. Five (6) copies of the endorsed first amended complaint filed September 19, 26 27 28 2016; 7. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court shall direct the 2 1 United States Marshals Service to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Rule 2 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without payment of costs; and 3 4 5 8. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 6, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?