(PC) Williams v. Thompson

Opinion

JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS, 1:19-cv-00330 JLT (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE; v. ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT SERVICE DOCUMENTS; THOMPSON, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS NON-COGNIZABLE Defendants. CLAIMS

Recently, the Court screened the plaintiff’s complaint and found it stated the following claims: (1) a First Amendment retaliation claim Thompson, Houston, Shoemaker, Castalas, and Hawthorne; (2) an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Thompson, Houston, Shoemaker; (3) an Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim against Robinson, Castalas, and Perez; and (4) an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Scalley, Castalas, and Perez. (Doc. 13.) The Court further determined that no other claims were cognizable as plead. The Court allowed the plaintiff the option to stand on complaint, proceed with it as screened, or to file an amended complaint. He has now filed a notice of his willingness to proceed on the complaint as screened and to dismiss the claims deemed non-cognizable. (Doc. 14) Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to this case; 2. Service shall be initiated on the following defendants: THOMPSON – Supervising Senior Psychologist at California State Prison in Corcoran, California (“CSP-Cor”) HAWTHORNE – Correctional Sergeant at CSP-Cor HOUSTON –Psychologist at CSP-Cor SHOEMAKER – Psychologist at CSP-Cor SCALLEY – Correctional Officer at CSP-Cor CASTALAS – Correctional Officer at CSP-Cor PEREZ – Correctional Officer at CSP-Cor ROBINSON – Psychiatric Technician at CSP-Cor 3. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff eight USM-285 form, eight summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed March 11, 2019; 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return to the Court the Notice of Submission of Documents along with the following documents: a. One completed summons for each defendant listed above, b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed above, c. Nine copies of the endorsed complaint filed March 11, 2019; 5. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court shall direct the United States Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs; 6. The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed; and The Court RECOMMENDS that all remaining claims and defendants be dismissed without leave to amend. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE