Barry Lamon v. Tilton et al
Filing
26
ORDER DIRECTING 1 Action to Proceed on First and Eighth Amendment Claims Against Defendants Birkholm, Mayugba and Schutt, DISMISSING other Claims and Defendants, and REFERRING Matter back to Magistrate Judge for further Proceedings signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/9/2011. (Sant Agata, S)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
BARRY LAMON,
11
12
13
CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00157-AWI-SKO PC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DIRECTING ACTION TO PROCEED
ON FIRST AND EIGHTH AMENDMENT
CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS
BIRKHOLM, MAYUGBA AND SCHUTT,
DISMISSING OTHER CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS, AND REFERRING MATTER
BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
v.
JOHN TILTON, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
(Docs. 1, 19, and 24)
16
/
17
Plaintiff Barry Lamon, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
18
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law on January 26, 2009. (Doc. 1.)
19
On March 7, 2011, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and
20
found that it states a First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Birkholm and an Eighth
21
Amendment medical care claim against Defendants Birkholm, Mayugba, and Schutt. Fed. R. Civ.
22
P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
23
544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007). (Doc. 19.) However, the Court found that Plaintiff’s
24
other claims were not cognizable. Plaintiff was ordered to either file an amended complaint or notify
25
the Court of his willingness to proceed only on his cognizable claims. On April 21, 2011, Plaintiff
26
notified the Court that he is willing to proceed on the claims found to be cognizable in the screening
27
order. (Doc. 24.)
28
1
1
2
3
Accordingly, in light of the screening order and Plaintiff’s election to proceed on his
cognizable claims, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed January 26, 2009, on
4
Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Birkholm and
5
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claim against Defendants Birkholm,
6
Mayugba, and Schutt;
7
2.
All other defendants and claims are dismissed from this action; and
8
3.
This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to initiate the service of process
9
phase.
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
Dated:
0m8i78
June 9, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?
