Canada v. Hamkar

Filing 61

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/23/2017 GRANTING plaintiff's 60 request and GRANTING plaintiff 30 days to respond to the 7/17/2017 order 58 . The Clerk shall send plaintiff a copy of the 7/17/2017 order and his complaint. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD LEE CANADA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. No. 2:14-cv-2990 WBS KJN P ORDER HAMKAR, 15 Defendant. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 17 18 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. B. Hamkar, 19 alleging Dr. Hamkar was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs, by, inter 20 alia, denying plaintiff effective medication for chronic pain despite his knowledge of the 21 impairments that plaintiff would suffer in the absence of the required medication. (ECF No. 5 at 22 2.) On July 17, 2017, plaintiff was directed to file a clarification as to how he wishes to proceed. 23 However, on July 20, 2017, plaintiff filed a notice that he was again being transferred. On 24 August 14, 2017, plaintiff confirmed that he was transferred and that his pleading in this action 25 has been removed from his legal materials. Plaintiff seeks a copy of his complaint. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s request is granted. In addition, plaintiff is granted thirty 26 27 days in which to respond to the July 17, 2017 order. 28 //// 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 60) is granted; 3 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days in which to respond to the July 17, 2017 order (ECF No. 4 5 58); and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the July 17, 2017 order 6 (ECF No. 58) and his complaint (ECF No. 1). 7 Dated: August 23, 2017 8 9 10 /cana2990.ext2 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?