(PC)Jones v. Dazo et al, No. 2:2009cv02974 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 6/14/2010 ORDERING that service is appropriate for dfts Dazo and Reddy; the clerk to send pltf forms for service to be completed and returned w/in 28 days, along w/ the Notice of Submission; the clerk to assign a District Judge to this case; and RECOMMENDING that dfts Holloway, Bradley, Casey, Cardeno, Butler and Kramer be dismissed from this action. Assigned and Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due w/in 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC)Jones v. Dazo et al Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JULIUS JONES, Plaintiff, 11 12 vs. 13 No. CIV S-09-2974 GGH P A. DAZO, et al., Defendants. 14 ORDER & FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. On March 16 17 23, 2010, the court found plaintiff’s complaint stated a colorable claim for relief against 18 defendants Dr. A. Dazo and Dr. S. Reddy, but dismissed claims against Holloway,1 Bradley, 19 Casey, Cardeno, Butler and Kramer with leave to amend within twenty-eight days. Plaintiff has 20 not filed an amended complaint, therefore defendants Holloway, Bradley, Casey, Cardeno, Butler 21 and Kramer should be dismissed. 22 If the allegations of the complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable 23 opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action against Dr. A Dazo and Dr. S Reddy. 24 Although defendant Holloway was not listed as dismissed within the order clause of the March 23, 2010, order, it was made clear within the body of the order that the only colorable claim for relief was alleged against defendants Dazo and Reddy and any claim against defendant Holloway was expressly dismissed. See Order, filed on March 23, 2010 (docket # 6), pp. 3-4. 1 25 26 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: Dr. A. Dazo and Dr. S. 3 Reddy; 2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff two USM-285 forms, one summons, 4 5 an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed October 23, 2009. 3. Within twenty-eight days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete 6 7 the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the 8 court: 9 a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents; 10 b. One completed summons; 11 c. Two completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1 12 above; and 13 d. Three copies of the endorsed complaint filed October 23, 2009. 14 4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of 15 service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States 16 Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 17 without payment of costs. 18 5. The Clerk of the Court assign a District Judge in this case. 19 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the defendants Holloway, Bradley, 20 21 Casey, Cardeno, Butler and Kramer be dismissed from this action. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 22 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 23 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 24 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 25 “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 26 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 2 1 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 2 District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 DATED: June 14, 2010 4 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 GGH:ab:009 jone2974.srv 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JULIUS JONES, Plaintiff, 11 No. CIV S-09-2974 GGH P vs. 12 13 A. DRAZO, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS Defendants. 14 / 15 Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's 16 17 order filed : 18 1 completed summons form 19 2 completed USM-285 forms 20 3 copies of the 21 October 23, 2009 Complaint DATED: 22 23 Plaintiff 24 25 26
]]>
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.
