Turner v. California Departement of Corrections & Rehabilitation

Filing 34

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 08/15/17 ordering because plaintiff has not consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case. U.S. District Judge Will iam B. Shubb randomly assigned to this case. Within 30 days of the filed date of this order, plaintiff may do one of three things: a. File an amended complaint to attempt to state claims against defendants Norris, Silveira, Mariano, Dulk, Brunetti, Dobie, Rodrigues, Parsons, Martin, Marquez, Kesterson, Gaughan, Thomas, Price, Murphy, Lui, Hemenway, Vila, Briggs, Voong, Beard, and Kernan; b. File a motion for reconsideration by the district judge of this courts July 7 screening order; or c. In form the court that he wishes to proceed on his first amended complaint against only defendants Johnson and Brennan. If plaintiff chooses this option, he must provide the court with three complete copies of the endorsed first amended complaint filed April 17, 2017 so that the Marshal may effect service of the first amended complaint on defendants Johnson and Brennan. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH DUANE TURNER,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:15-cv-1584 DB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

19

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff contends that while he was incarcerated at Deuel

20

Vocational Institution (“DVI”) defendants retaliated against him for exercising his First

21

Amendment rights. On April 17, 2017, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 30.)

22

In an order filed July 7, 2017, the court screened that complaint. (ECF No. 32.) The court found

23

plaintiff stated cognizable claims for retaliation and conspiracy against defendants Johnson and

24

Brennan. The court dismissed defendant California Department of Corrections and

25

Rehabilitation. The court further found plaintiff failed to state claims against defendants Norris,

26

Silveira, Mariano, Dulk, Brunetti, Dobie, Rodrigues, Parsons, Martin, Marquez, Kesterson,

27

Gaughan, Thomas, Price, Murphy, Lui, Hemenway, Vila, Briggs, Voong, Beard, and Kernan.

28

Plaintiff was given the opportunity to amend his complaint to attempt to state cognizable claims
1

1

against these defendants or to proceed on his first amended complaint against only defendants

2

Johnson and Brennan.

3

On August 8, 2017, plaintiff submitted service documents for defendants Johnson and

4

Brennan. (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff did not, however, provide sufficient copies of his first amended

5

complaint. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and its attachments are 284 pages long. He

6

provided copies of only the first 18 pages. Service on these defendants requires complete copies

7

of the first amended complaint and all attached documents.

8
9

Additionally, in his August 8 filing, plaintiff stated that he did not consent to dismissal of
defendants Norris, Silveira, Mariano, Dulk, Brunetti, Dobie, Rodrigues, Parsons, Martin,

10

Marquez, Kesterson, Gaughan, Thomas, Price, Murphy, Lui, Hemenway, Vila, Briggs, Voong,

11

Beard, and Kernan. Plaintiff states that he adequately alleged claims against those defendants.

12

The court has considered plaintiff’s argument that he adequately alleged claims against

13

these 22 defendants in his first amended complaint. For the reasons stated in the July screening

14

order, the court again finds that plaintiff has not done so. Therefore, at this juncture, plaintiff has

15

three choices: (1) he may file an amended complaint as explained in the July 7 screening order;

16

(2) he may seek reconsideration of the court’s July 7 screening order from the district judge; or

17

(3) he may proceed on his claims in the first amended complaint against only defendants Johnson

18

and Brennan.

19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

20

1.

21
22
23

Because plaintiff has not consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, the Clerk
of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case.

2. Within 30 days of the filed date of this order, plaintiff may do one of three things:
a.

File an amended complaint to attempt to state claims against defendants Norris,

24

Silveira, Mariano, Dulk, Brunetti, Dobie, Rodrigues, Parsons, Martin, Marquez,

25

Kesterson, Gaughan, Thomas, Price, Murphy, Lui, Hemenway, Vila, Briggs,

26

Voong, Beard, and Kernan;

27
28

b. File a motion for reconsideration by the district judge of this court’s July 7
screening order; or
2

1

c. Inform the court that he wishes to proceed on his first amended complaint against

2

only defendants Johnson and Brennan. If plaintiff chooses this option, he must

3

provide the court with three complete copies of the endorsed first amended

4

complaint filed April 17, 2017 so that the Marshal may effect service of the first

5

amended complaint on defendants Johnson and Brennan.

6

Dated: August 15, 2017

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/turn1584.fta(2)

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3