1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Johnny Ray Foster, No. CV-26-00251-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 NaphCare Incorporated, 13 Defendant.
15 Plaintiff Johnny Ray Foster, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex- 16 Lewis, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and 17 a Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Doc. 4). Plaintiff has paid the 18 filing and administrative fees. The Court will order Defendant to answer the Complaint 19 and respond to the Motion. 20 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 21 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 22 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 23 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 24 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which 25 relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 26 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 27 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 28 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 1 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 2 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 3 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 4 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 5 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 6 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 7 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 8 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 9 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 10 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 11 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 12 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 13 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 14 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 15 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 16 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 17 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 18 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 19 II. Discussion of Complaint 20 In his Complaint, Plaintiff names NaphCare Incorporated (“NaphCare”) as the sole 21 Defendant. Plaintiff asserts a claim regarding his medical care. He seeks monetary and 22 injunctive relief. 23 Plaintiff alleges the following: 24 On October 22, 2024, Plaintiff was hit in his right eye during recreation. He felt 25 pain in his eye and placed a warm towel on it, which lessened the pain. Between October 26 23 and 26, 2024, Plaintiff submitted health needs requests (HNRs) requesting an evaluation 27 of his right eye. Plaintiff did not receive responses to his HNRs. 28 1 On October 27, 2024, Plaintiff “got with” Arizona Department of Corrections, 2 Rehabilitation and Reentry staff and told them that he needed to be taken to the medical 3 unit for treatment for his right eye because he was losing vision, and the pain had become 4 unbearable. A NaphCare nurse evaluated Plaintiff and obtained permission for Plaintiff to 5 be transported to the hospital for emergency treatment. 6 At the hospital, Plaintiff received “minimum treatment”—that is, eye drops—and 7 the emergency room doctor told him that he needed to see an ophthalmologist within two 8 days for treatment. Between October 28 and 31, 2024, Plaintiff’s vision continued to 9 deteriorate. He submitted HNRs on October 29 and 31, 2024, telling medical staff he had 10 lost vision in his right eye and was suffering extreme pain and pressure in the right side of 11 his head. Plaintiff did not receive any response to his HNRs or evaluation of his eye. 12 Meanwhile, on October 30, 2024, an eye specialist evaluated Plaintiff’s eye injury 13 onsite. The specialist told Plaintiff he was blind in his right eye and had glaucoma in both 14 eyes. Plainitiff asked the specialist what he would do about treating his right eye, and the 15 specialist told Plaintiff there was nothing he could do to help Plaintiff and that Plaintiff 16 needed to see an ophthalmologist. 17 On November 11, 2024, Plaintiff submitted an HNR stating that he needed treatment 18 for his eye but received no response or treatment. On November 14, 2024, he submitted 19 an HNR asking about the status of his outside appointment with an ophthalmologist. 20 Plaintiff did not receive a response to the HNR. 21 On November 27, 2024, Plaintiff was told he was going offsite that day to the 22 ophthalmologist. Later that morning, he was told the appointment was cancelled. Plaintiff 23 was not given a reason for the cancellation. Plaintiff did not receive any medical treatment 24 through December 2024. 25 At some point, Plaintiff submitted another HNR stating he was blind in his right eye 26 due to the lack of medical treatment and that his eye was swollen and the right side of his 27 head was swollen and painful. Plaintiff did not receive a response to the HNR and was not 28 taken to the offsite ophthalmologist. 1 In late January 2025, Plaintiff saw an ophthalmologist, who “focused on his left eye 2 and glaucoma.” Plaintiff asked the ophthalmologist “why he [was] not focusing on 3 [Plaintiff’s]” injured right eye. The ophthalmologist told Plaintiff that NaphCare told him 4 only to focus on Plaintiff’s left eye and glaucoma, although Plaintiff was blind in his right 5 eye. 6 In February 2025, Plaintiff had another appointment with the same ophthalmologist. 7 The ophthalmologist refused to evaluate Plaintiff’s right eye and again “focused on [his] 8 left eye only.” Plaintiff “got into an argument” with the ophthalmologist concerning his 9 right eye. The ophthalmologist told Plaintiff that he would recommend to the NaphCare 10 Medical Board that Plaintiff see another ophthalmologist. 11 On March 18, 2025, Plaintiff saw another ophthalmologist for his right eye. That 12 ophthalmologist told Plaintiff that he had “suffered damage” to his right eye, but NaphCare 13 had only approved an evaluation, not treatment of his eye. The ophthalmologist told 14 Plaintiff that his eye “could be saved and vision restored” if NaphCare approved a “medical 15 procedure.” 16 On March 27, 2025, Plaintiff submitted an HNR requesting that NaphCare approve 17 the procedure the second ophthalmologist recommended. Plaintiff did not receive a 18 response to the HNR. On April 1, 2025, Plaintiff submitted another HNR requesting the 19 status of his ophthalmologist appointment. Plaintiff did not receive a response to the HNR 20 or treatment for the swelling, drainage, or “gap” between his eyeball and eye socket. 21 On April 8, 2025, Plaintiff saw the ophthalmologist for evaluation and treatment.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Johnny Ray Foster, No. CV-26-00251-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 NaphCare Incorporated, 13 Defendant.
15 Plaintiff Johnny Ray Foster, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex- 16 Lewis, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and 17 a Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Doc. 4). Plaintiff has paid the 18 filing and administrative fees. The Court will order Defendant to answer the Complaint 19 and respond to the Motion. 20 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 21 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 22 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 23 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 24 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which 25 relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 26 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 27 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 28 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 1 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 2 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 3 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 4 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 5 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 6 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 7 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 8 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 9 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 10 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 11 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 12 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 13 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 14 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 15 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 16 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 17 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 18 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 19 II. Discussion of Complaint 20 In his Complaint, Plaintiff names NaphCare Incorporated (“NaphCare”) as the sole 21 Defendant. Plaintiff asserts a claim regarding his medical care. He seeks monetary and 22 injunctive relief. 23 Plaintiff alleges the following: 24 On October 22, 2024, Plaintiff was hit in his right eye during recreation. He felt 25 pain in his eye and placed a warm towel on it, which lessened the pain. Between October 26 23 and 26, 2024, Plaintiff submitted health needs requests (HNRs) requesting an evaluation 27 of his right eye. Plaintiff did not receive responses to his HNRs. 28 1 On October 27, 2024, Plaintiff “got with” Arizona Department of Corrections, 2 Rehabilitation and Reentry staff and told them that he needed to be taken to the medical 3 unit for treatment for his right eye because he was losing vision, and the pain had become 4 unbearable. A NaphCare nurse evaluated Plaintiff and obtained permission for Plaintiff to 5 be transported to the hospital for emergency treatment. 6 At the hospital, Plaintiff received “minimum treatment”—that is, eye drops—and 7 the emergency room doctor told him that he needed to see an ophthalmologist within two 8 days for treatment. Between October 28 and 31, 2024, Plaintiff’s vision continued to 9 deteriorate. He submitted HNRs on October 29 and 31, 2024, telling medical staff he had 10 lost vision in his right eye and was suffering extreme pain and pressure in the right side of 11 his head. Plaintiff did not receive any response to his HNRs or evaluation of his eye. 12 Meanwhile, on October 30, 2024, an eye specialist evaluated Plaintiff’s eye injury 13 onsite. The specialist told Plaintiff he was blind in his right eye and had glaucoma in both 14 eyes. Plainitiff asked the specialist what he would do about treating his right eye, and the 15 specialist told Plaintiff there was nothing he could do to help Plaintiff and that Plaintiff 16 needed to see an ophthalmologist. 17 On November 11, 2024, Plaintiff submitted an HNR stating that he needed treatment 18 for his eye but received no response or treatment. On November 14, 2024, he submitted 19 an HNR asking about the status of his outside appointment with an ophthalmologist. 20 Plaintiff did not receive a response to the HNR. 21 On November 27, 2024, Plaintiff was told he was going offsite that day to the 22 ophthalmologist. Later that morning, he was told the appointment was cancelled. Plaintiff 23 was not given a reason for the cancellation. Plaintiff did not receive any medical treatment 24 through December 2024. 25 At some point, Plaintiff submitted another HNR stating he was blind in his right eye 26 due to the lack of medical treatment and that his eye was swollen and the right side of his 27 head was swollen and painful. Plaintiff did not receive a response to the HNR and was not 28 taken to the offsite ophthalmologist. 1 In late January 2025, Plaintiff saw an ophthalmologist, who “focused on his left eye 2 and glaucoma.” Plaintiff asked the ophthalmologist “why he [was] not focusing on 3 [Plaintiff’s]” injured right eye. The ophthalmologist told Plaintiff that NaphCare told him 4 only to focus on Plaintiff’s left eye and glaucoma, although Plaintiff was blind in his right 5 eye. 6 In February 2025, Plaintiff had another appointment with the same ophthalmologist. 7 The ophthalmologist refused to evaluate Plaintiff’s right eye and again “focused on [his] 8 left eye only.” Plaintiff “got into an argument” with the ophthalmologist concerning his 9 right eye. The ophthalmologist told Plaintiff that he would recommend to the NaphCare 10 Medical Board that Plaintiff see another ophthalmologist. 11 On March 18, 2025, Plaintiff saw another ophthalmologist for his right eye. That 12 ophthalmologist told Plaintiff that he had “suffered damage” to his right eye, but NaphCare 13 had only approved an evaluation, not treatment of his eye. The ophthalmologist told 14 Plaintiff that his eye “could be saved and vision restored” if NaphCare approved a “medical 15 procedure.” 16 On March 27, 2025, Plaintiff submitted an HNR requesting that NaphCare approve 17 the procedure the second ophthalmologist recommended. Plaintiff did not receive a 18 response to the HNR. On April 1, 2025, Plaintiff submitted another HNR requesting the 19 status of his ophthalmologist appointment. Plaintiff did not receive a response to the HNR 20 or treatment for the swelling, drainage, or “gap” between his eyeball and eye socket. 21 On April 8, 2025, Plaintiff saw the ophthalmologist for evaluation and treatment. 22 The ophthalmologist told Plaintiff that NaphCare was delaying approving the procedure to 23 restore his vision and that Plaintiff was “running out of time to get [the] procedure done.” 24 Between April 10 and May 16, 2025, Plaintiff submitted six HNRs requesting 25 emergency treatment for his right eye but did not receive any additional treatment. 26 Between June 5 and July 5, 2025, Plaintiff submitted seven requests that NaphCare approve 27 the ophthalmologist-recommended procedure, but his requests were denied, on the 28 1 apparent basis that Plaintiff was receiving “effective eye treatment” and that his condition 2 was being monitored. 3 Between July 10 and August 20, 2025, Plaintiff submitted eight HNRs requesting 4 emergency treatment for his eye but did not receive any response. Plaintiff then submitted 5 seven additional HNRs requesting approval of the ophthalmologist-recommended 6 procedure. Plaintiff did not receive medical treatment for his right eye. Plaintiff “is denied 7 access in walking into” the medical unit because NaphCare does not allow prisoners to 8 “just walk into the medical unit for treatment.” 9 On September 29, 2025, Plaintiff submitted an HNR requesting to review all his 10 medical records. On October 12, 2025, NaphCare denied his request to review his medical 11 records without explanation. Plaintiff submitted four emergency HNRs between 12 November 4 and 20, 2025 requesting treatment for his right eye, but he did not receive a 13 response. On November 20, 2025, Plaintiff submitted an emergency request to review his 14 medical records, which NaphCare denied the next day. 15 On November 26, 2025, Plaintiff submitted an HNR stating that he was beginning 16 to have “problems” in his left eye because he was being denied treatment for his right eye. 17 On December 23, 2025, Plaintiff submitted an HNR “pleading for action[] [o]n his many 18 HNRs concerning” his right eye. Plaintiff did not receive responses to his HNRs. 19 Plaintiff alleges that NaphCare did not approve his outside consultation with an 20 ophthalmologist and denied treatment for his right eye “due to cost.” Plaintiff claims that 21 because of NaphCare “policy, customs and practices,” his right eye was not treated or 22 evaluated during the January 2025 appointment with the ophthalmologist. 23 To state a claim under § 1983 against a private entity performing a traditional public 24 function, such as providing medical care to prisoners, a plaintiff must allege facts to support 25 that his constitutional rights were violated as a result of a policy, decision, or custom 26 promulgated or endorsed by the private entity. See Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 27 1128, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2012); Buckner v. Toro, 116 F.3d 450, 452 (11th Cir. 1997) (per 28 curiam). A plaintiff must allege the specific policy or custom and how it violated his 1 constitutional rights. A private entity is not liable merely because it employs persons who 2 allegedly violated a plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Tsao, 698 F.3d at 1139; Buckner, 3 116 F.3d at 452. 4 Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated a claim against NaphCare. The Court will 5 require NaphCare to answer the Complaint. 6 III. Plaintiff’s Motion 7 In his Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to order NaphCare to immediately take him 8 to an ophthalmologist for a full medical evaluation of the damage to his right eye. 9 Whether to grant or deny a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary 10 injunction is within the Court’s discretion. See Miss Universe, Inc. v. Flesher, 605 F.2d 11 1130, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1979). 12 A. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 13 A temporary restraining order can be issued without notice 14 only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or 15 damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies 16 in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why 17 it should not be required. 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) (emphasis added). See also LRCiv 65.1 (“Ex parte restraining 19 orders shall only issue in accordance with Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”). 20 Plaintiff has not shown that he will suffer irreparable injury before Defendant can 21 be heard in opposition and has not certified the “efforts made to give notice and the reasons 22 why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B). Because the request for a 23 temporary restraining order fails to comply with Rule 65(b)(1)(B), the Court, in its 24 discretion, will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to the extent that he requests a temporary 25 restraining order. See LRCiv 65.1. 26 B. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 27 To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show “that he is likely to 28 succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 1 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in 2 the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The 3 moving party has the burden of proof on each element of the test. Envtl. Council of 4 Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000). 5 The Court will require Defendant to respond to the portion of the Motion that seeks 6 a preliminary injunction. 7 IV. Warnings 8 A. Address Changes 9 Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 10 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other 11 relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this 12 action. 13 B. Copies 14 Because Plaintiff is currently confined in an Arizona Department of Corrections, 15 Rehabilitation & Reentry Complex or Private Facility subject to General Order 23-19, 16 Plaintiff can comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d) by including, with every 17 document Plaintiff files, a certificate of service stating that this case is subject to General 18 Order 23-19 and indicating the date the document was delivered to prison officials for filing 19 with the Court. Plaintiff is not required serve Defendant with copies of every document or 20 provide an additional copy of every document for the Court’s use. 21 If Plaintiff is transferred to a facility other than one subject to General Order 23-19, 22 Plaintiff will be required to: (a) serve Defendant, or counsel if an appearance has been 23 entered, a copy of every document Plaintiff files, and include a certificate stating that a 24 copy of the filing was served; and (b) submit an additional copy of every filing for use by 25 the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a) and (d); LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may result in 26 the filing being stricken without further notice to Plaintiff. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 C. Possible Dismissal 2 If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these 3 warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 4 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure 5 to comply with any order of the Court). 6 IT IS ORDERED: 7 (1) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff this Order, and a copy of the Marshal’s 8 Process Receipt & Return form (USM-285) and Notice of Lawsuit & Request for Waiver 9 of Service of Summons form for Defendant NaphCare. 10 (2) Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court 11 within 21 days of the date of filing of this Order. The United States Marshal will not 12 provide service of process if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order. 13 (3) If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or 14 complete service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant within 90 days of the filing 15 of the Complaint or within 60 days of the filing of this Order, whichever is later, the action 16 may be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(ii). 17 (4) The United States Marshal must retain the Summons and copies of the 18 Complaint, Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunctive Relief, and this Order for future 19 use. 20 (5) The United States Marshal must notify Defendant of the commencement of 21 this action and request waiver of service of the summons pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the 22 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The notice to Defendant must include a copy of this 23 Order. 24 (6) If Defendant NaphCare who agrees to waive service of the Summons and 25 Complaint, NaphCare must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, 26 not the Plaintiff, within 30 days of the date of the notice and request for waiver of 27 service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1)(F) to avoid being charged the 28 cost of personal service. 1 (7) The Marshal must immediately file signed waivers of service of the 2 summons. If a waiver of service of summons is returned as undeliverable or is not returned 3 by Defendant within 30 days from the date the request for waiver was sent by the Marshal, 4 the Marshal must: 5 (a) personally serve copies of the Summons, Complaint, Motion for 6 Emergency Preliminary Injunctive Relief, and this Order upon 7 Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(h)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil 8 Procedure; and 9 (b) within 10 days after personal service is effected, file the return of 10 service for Defendant, along with evidence of the attempt to secure a 11 waiver of service of the summons and of the costs subsequently 12 incurred in effecting service upon Defendant. The costs of service 13 must be enumerated on the return of service form (USM-285) and 14 must include the costs incurred by the Marshal for photocopying 15 additional copies of the Summons, Complaint, Motion for Emergency 16 Preliminary Injunctive Relief, or this Order and for preparing new 17 process receipt and return forms (USM-285), if required. Costs of 18 service will be taxed against the personally served Defendant pursuant 19 to Rule 4(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless 20 otherwise ordered by the Court. 21 (8) Defendant NaphCare must answer the Complaint or otherwise respond by 22 appropriate motion within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of 23 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 24 (9) Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Doc. 4) is 25 denied in part to the extent that Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order. The Court 26 will not rule at this time on Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction. 27 (10) Within 21 days of being served with the Complaint and Motion for 28 Emergency Preliminary Injunctive Relief, Defendant NaphCare must respond to the 1 | portion of the Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief that seeks a preliminary injunction. 2 (11) Plaintiff may file a reply within 10 days of Defendant’s response. 3 (12) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrial proceedings as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 6 Dated this 9th day of April, 2026. 7 8 ‘
10 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28