(PC) Brown v. Sagireddy et al, No. 2:2014cv00338 - Document 69 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER adopting in full 68 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/25/16. Within 30 days of service of this order, defendants Sagireddy, Naseer, and Foronda are ordered to respond to Counts I, II, and III of the first amended complaint as set forth in Section III of the 2/5/2016 findings and recommendations. Service of Counts III and V of the first amended complaint is ordered on defendants Wright, Li, Burck, and Chipendo, as set forth in Section III of t he February 5, 2016 findings and recommendations. The Clerk is ordered to provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a copy of the pleading filed 2/11/2015 39 , four USM-285 forms, and instructions for service of process on defendants Wright, Li, Bur ck, and Chipendo. Within 30 days of service of this order, plaintiff shall return the Notice of Submission of Documents with the required completed documents. Failure to comply with the order will result in a recommendation that the claims again st defendants Wright, Li, Burck, and Chipendo be dismissed. Counts IV and VI through XI and defendants Howell, Abirimahmud, Mofor, Acuvera, Racacho, Casino, Tucker, Beard, Duffy, Does #1-4, Malone, Barton, Eggman, Dickinson, Lau, and Erilim are dismissed without leave to amend as set forth in Section IV of the 2/5/2016, findings and recommendations. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order 51 is denied. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF

(PC) Brown v. Sagireddy et al Doc. 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEXTER BROWN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:14-cv-0338 JAM AC P v. ORDER PURUSHOTTAMA SAGIREDDY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 5, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 68. Neither 23 party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 24 25 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 26 ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 5, 2016 (ECF No. 68), are adopted 27 28 in full; 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2. Within thirty days of service of this order, defendants Sagireddy, Naseer, and Foronda 2 are ordered to respond to Counts I, II, and III of the first amended complaint, as set forth in 3 Section III of the February 5, 2016 findings and recommendations. 4 3. Service of Counts III and V of the first amended complaint is ordered on defendants 5 Wright, Li, Burck, and Chipendo, as set forth in Section III of the February 5, 2016 findings and 6 recommendations. 7 a. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a 8 copy of the pleading filed February 11, 2015 (ECF No. 39), four USM-285 forms, and 9 instructions for service of process on defendants Wright, Li, Burck, and Chipendo. 10 b. Within thirty days of service of this order, plaintiff shall return the Notice of 11 Submission of Documents with the completed summons, the completed USM-285 forms, and five 12 copies of the endorsed first amended complaint filed February 11, 2015. Plaintiff need not 13 attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service. Upon receipt of the above- 14 described documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to serve the above-named 15 defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs. Defendants 16 Wright, Li, Burck, and Chipendo will be required to respond to plaintiff’s allegations as set forth 17 above within the deadlines stated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1). 18 19 20 c. Failure to comply with the order will result in a recommendation that the claims against defendants Wright, Li, Burck, and Chipendo be dismissed. 4. Counts IV and VI through XI and defendants Howell, Abirimahmud, Mofor, Acuvera, 21 Racacho, Casino, Tucker, Beard, Duffy, Does #1-4, Malone, Barton, Eggman, Dickinson, Lau, 22 and Erilim are dismissed without leave to amend as set forth in Section IV of the February 5, 23 2016 findings and recommendations. 24 5. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (ECF No. 25 51) is denied. 26 DATED: March 25, 2016 27 /s/ John A. Mendez__________________________ 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 DEXTER BROWN, 14 15 16 No. 2:14-cv-0338 JAM AC P Plaintiff, v. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS PURUSHOTTAMA SAGIREDDY, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s order filed 20 ________________________. 21 1 completed summons form 22 4 completed forms USM-285 23 5 copies of the First Amended Complaint 24 25 DATED: 26 27 Plaintiff 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.