Segovia v. State of California, et al.

Filing 12

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/11/16 ORDERING service is appropriate for defendants Peters, Convalecer and Moon. The clerk of the court shall send plaintiff 3 USM-285 forms, 1 summons, instr uction sheet, and a copy of the 1/16/15 amended complaint to be completed and returned within 30 days. The clerk of the court is directed to assign a district judge to this action. U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell randomly assigned to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that all defendants other than Peters, Vonvalecer and Moon be dismissed from this action. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID SEGOVIA,

12
13
14

No. 2:14-cv-0715 CKD P (TEMP)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed December 19, 2014, plaintiff’s complaint was

19

dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an amended

20

complaint.

21

The amended complaint states a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §

22

1915A(b). Specifically, plaintiff has adequately alleged deliberate indifference to a serious

23

medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants Peters, Convalecer and

24

Moon. If the allegations of the amended complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable

25

opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. As to the remaining defendants, the

26

undersigned concludes that the first amended complaint does not cure the defects of the original

27

complaint as set forth in the December 19, 2014 screening order. See Daniels-Hall v. National

28

Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010) (while the court must assume plaintiff’s factual
1

1

allegations are true, it is not required to accept allegations that are “merely conclusory,

2

unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.”) Thus the undersigned will

3

recommend that all defendants other than Peters, Convalecer, and Moon be dismissed from this

4

action.

5

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: Peters, Convalecer and Moon.

7

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff three USM-285 forms, one summons, an

8

instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed January 16, 2015.

9

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached

10

Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

11

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

12

b. One completed summons;

13

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1 above;

14

and

15

d. Four copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed January 16, 2015.

16

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service.

17

Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to

18

serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment

19

of costs.

20

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action.

21

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

22

1.

23

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

24

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

25

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

26

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

27

/////

28

/////

All defendants other than Peters, Convalecer and Moon be dismissed from this action.

2

1

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

2

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

3

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

4

Dated: January 11, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8

hm/sego0715.1amd.new

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

No.

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF
DOCUMENTS

14
15

Defendant.

16
17
18

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order
filed _____________________ :

19

____

completed summons form

20

____

completed USM-285 forms

21

____

copies of the ___________________
Complaint

22
23

DATED:

24
25
26
27

________________________________

28

Plaintiff
4