Witkin v. Lee et al
Filing
19
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/16/2018 GRANTING plaintiff's 17 motion for reconsideration; plaintiff will be permitted to proceed on his claim arising under California law; and in a separate order, the court will order that defendants Alvarez, Dinh, Lee, Matteson, Maurino, Arnold and Neuschmid be served with process. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MICHAEL AARON WITKIN,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:17-cv-0232 JAM CKD P
v.
ORDER
M. LEE, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed
17
18
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 09, 2018, plaintiff filed what the court construes as a
19
motion for reconsideration of the court’s finding that plaintiff did not adequately plead a claim
20
plaintiff identifies as negligence arising under California law in his second amended complaint.
21
Upon reconsideration, the court finds that the claim is adequately plead.
22
/////
23
/////
24
/////
25
/////
26
/////
27
/////
28
/////
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 17) is granted;
3
2. Plaintiff will be permitted to proceed on his claim arising under California law; and
4
3. In a separate order, the court will order that defendants Alvarez, Dinh, Lee, Matteson,
5
Maurino, Arnold and Neuschmid be served with process.
6
Dated: October 16, 2018
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
witk0232.mfr
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?