Holt v. Nicholas et al
Filing
57
ORDER Regarding Clarification Of Defendant Crouch's Dismissal (Doc. 44 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 11/16/2011. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
VIRGIL E. HOLT,
10
11
CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00800-AWI-GBC (PC)
Plaintiff,
REGARDING CLARIFICATION OF
DEFENDANT CROUCH’S DISMISSAL
v.
(Doc. 44)
12
R. NICHOLAS, et al.,
13
Defendants.
/
14
15
Plaintiff Virgil E. Holt, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
16
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 4, 2009. Doc. 1. This action is proceeding
17
on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed on April 8, 2010, against: 1) Defendants R. Nicholas,
18
A. Holguin, J. Ortega, L. Machado, J. Juden, G. Adame, F. Rivera, R. Valverde, D. Coontz, M.
19
Bubbel, K. Prior, J. Tyree, Large, Soto, Yubeta, Worrell, Vo, Knight, T. Crouch, Pinkerton, and
20
Valasco for violation of the Eighth Amendment; 2) Defendant Holguin for retaliation in violation
21
of the First Amendment and 3) Defendants Carrasco and D. Zanchi for supervisory liability. Doc.
22
21; Doc. 23, Doc. 28.
23
On April 26, 2011, Defendants filed a request for clarification regarding whether Defendant
24
Crouch was still in this action. Doc. 44. It is unclear whether there were originally two different
25
Defendants with the last name Crouch or if there were two different claims against the same
26
Defendant Crouch. Doc. 23 at 3, 8; Doc. 28. Defendant "Crouch" was dismissed regarding counts
27
12, 14, 15 for due process and retaliation, however, the Court found a cognizable Eighth Amendment
28
Claim Defendant "T. Crouch." Doc. 23 at 3, 8; Doc. 28. Therefore, Defendant T. Crouch is still a
1
1
defendant in this action for the Eighth Amendment claim.
2
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
Dated:
0jh02o
November 16, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
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?