(PC) Campbell v. Tanton et al, No. 2:2018cv00671 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/7/2018 ORDERING Clerk of Court to randomly assign this case to a district court judge; DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT SERVICE DOCUMENTS and USM-285 Forms as se rvice is appropriate for Herrera, Kenton, and Martin; and RECOMMENDING that the 8th Amendment excessive force claim against defendants J. Tanton, G. Ellin, L. Spangler, J. Leech, T. Stanfield, S. Manson, and J. Morton be dismissed. Clerk to send pl aintiff: 1 Summons, 3 USM-285 Forms with instruction sheet, and 1 copy of the Complaint filed on 3/28/2018. Plaintiff to complete and submit the Notice of Submission of Documents with service documents within 30 days from the date of this order. Assigned and referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)

Download PDF

(PC) Campbell v. Tanton et al Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SENARBLE CAMPBELL, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. No. 2:18-cv-00671 CKD P ORDER & FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS J. TANTON, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 19 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 On July 9, 2018, this court screened plaintiff’s complaint and found that plaintiff stated a 21 cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against defendants F. Martin, 22 Psychologist Kenton, and Psychiatric Technician Herrera. The same order concluded that 23 plaintiff’s excessive force allegations against defendants J. Tanton, G. Ellin, L. Spangler, J. 24 Leech, T. Stanfield, S. Manson, and J. Morton were too conclusory to state a viable claim for 25 relief. Plaintiff was given the option of amending his complaint or proceeding only on the Eighth 26 Amendment deliberate indifference claim. On July 23, 2018 plaintiff responded to the court’s 27 screening order and elected to proceed solely on the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 28 claim. ECF No. 12. Therefore, the court will order that plaintiff provide information to the court 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 so that defendants F. Martin, Psychologist Kenton, and Psychiatric Technician Herrera can be 2 served with process. 3 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: F. Martin, Psychologist Kenton, 5 and Psychiatric Technician Herrera, all employed at California State Prison-Sacramento in June 6 and October 2015. 7 8 2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff three USM-285 forms, one summons, an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint. 9 3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 10 Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court: 11 a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents; 12 b. One completed summons; 13 c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1 above; 14 and 15 d. Four copies of the complaint. 16 4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service. 17 Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to 18 serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment 19 of costs. 20 5. The Clerk of Court randomly assign this case to a district court judge. 21 In light of plaintiff’s election on how to proceed, IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED 22 that the Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against defendants J. Tanton, G. Ellin, 23 L. Spangler, J. Leech, T. Stanfield, S. Manson, and J. Morton be dismissed. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 27 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 28 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 2 1 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 2 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 3 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 Dated: August 7, 2018 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12/camp0671.1.option.docx 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SENARBLE CAMPBELL, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:18-cv-00671 CKD P v. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS J. TANTON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order filed _____________________: 19 ____ completed summons form 20 ____ completed USM-285 forms 21 ____ copies of the ___________________ Complaint 22 23 DATED: 24 25 26 ____________________ Plaintiff 27 28 1

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.