(PC) Williams v. Thompson ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS, 1:19-cv-00330 JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE; 13 v. ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT SERVICE DOCUMENTS; 14 THOMPSON, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS NON-COGNIZABLE 15 Defendants. CLAIMS 16 17 Recently, the Court screened the plaintiff’s complaint and found it stated the following 18 claims: (1) a First Amendment retaliation claim Thompson, Houston, Shoemaker, Castalas, and 19 Hawthorne; (2) an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Thompson, Houston, 20 Shoemaker; (3) an Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim against Robinson, Castalas, and 21 Perez; and (4) an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Scalley, Castalas, and Perez. 22 (Doc. 13.) The Court further determined that no other claims were cognizable as plead. The Court 23 allowed the plaintiff the option to stand on complaint, proceed with it as screened, or to file an 24 amended complaint. He has now filed a notice of his willingness to proceed on the complaint as 25 screened and to dismiss the claims deemed non-cognizable. (Doc. 14) Accordingly, the Court 26 ORDERS: 27 1. The Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to this case; 28 2. Service shall be initiated on the following defendants: 1 THOMPSON – Supervising Senior Psychologist at California State Prison in 2 Corcoran, California (“CSP-Cor”) 3 HAWTHORNE – Correctional Sergeant at CSP-Cor 4 HOUSTON –Psychologist at CSP-Cor 5 SHOEMAKER – Psychologist at CSP-Cor 6 SCALLEY – Correctional Officer at CSP-Cor 7 CASTALAS – Correctional Officer at CSP-Cor 8 PEREZ – Correctional Officer at CSP-Cor 9 ROBINSON – Psychiatric Technician at CSP-Cor 10 3. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff eight USM-285 form, eight summons, a 11 Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a copy of the 12 complaint filed March 11, 2019; 13 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return to the 14 Court the Notice of Submission of Documents along with the following documents: 15 a. One completed summons for each defendant listed above, 16 b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed above, 17 c. Nine copies of the endorsed complaint filed March 11, 2019; 18 5. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of 19 service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court shall direct the 20 United States Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule 21 of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs; 22 6. The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that the action 23 be dismissed; and 24 The Court RECOMMENDS that all remaining claims and defendants be dismissed 25 without leave to amend. 26 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 27 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 28 fourteen days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file 1 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 2 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 3 within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 4 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: February 6, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28