-GGH (PC) Young v. Aramark Food Service Provider et al, No. 2:2011cv00505 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/17/2011 RECOMMENDING that dft Aramark be dismissed from this action ; and pltf's due process claims against dfts Solano County and the Solano County Sheri ff's Department be dismissed; Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections due w/in 14 days; and ORDERING that service is appropriate for Solano County Sheriff Department and Solano County; the clerk to send pltf forms for service to be completed and returned w/in 30 days, along w/ the Notice of Submission.(Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-GGH (PC) Young v. Aramark Food Service Provider et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CLAUDE YOUNG, III 11 Plaintiff, vs. 12 13 No. CIV S-11-0505 GEB GGH P ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE PROVIDER, et al., Defendants. 14 ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se who seeks relief pursuant to 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. By order on May 4, 2011, the undersigned dismissed plaintiff’s due process 18 claims against all defendants and Eighth Amendment claims against Aramark with twenty-eight 19 days leave to amend. The twenty-eight day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an 20 amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Also in its May 4, 2011 order, the court found that the complaint states a 21 22 cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Specifically, 23 the complaint alleges a sufficiently colorable Eighth Amendment claim against defendants 24 Solano County and the Solano County Sheriff’s Department. If the allegations of the complaint 25 are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. 26 \\\\ 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that 2 1. Defendant Aramark be dismissed from this action; and 3 2. Plaintiff’s due process claims against defendants Solano County and the Solano 4 5 County Sheriff’s Department be dismissed. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 6 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 7 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 8 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 9 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 10 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 11 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 12 District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: Solano County and the 15 16 17 18 19 Solano County Sheriff’s Department. 2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff 2 USM-285 forms, one summons, an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed February 23, 2011. 3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court: 20 a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents; 21 b. One completed summons; 22 c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 3 23 above; and 24 d. 3 copies of the endorsed complaint filed February 23, 2011. 25 26 4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States 2 1 Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 2 without payment of costs. 3 DATED: October 17, 2011 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 5 6 youn0505.1.new GGH:14 7 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 CLAUDE YOUNG, III 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. CIV S-11-0505 GEB GGH P vs. ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE PROVIDER, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION 14 Defendants. 15 16 ____________________________________/ Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's 17 18 OF DOCUMENTS order filed : 19 completed summons form 20 completed USM-285 forms 21 copies of the Complaint/Amended Complaint 22 DATED: 23 24 Plaintiff 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.
