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)
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?