Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lipsey v. Reddy

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 19, 2017

CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
DR. REDDY, et al., Defendants.

         ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF COMPLAINT APPROPRIATE AGAINST CERTAIN DEFENDANTS, AND FORWARDING SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF FOR COMPLETION AND RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

         FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS, WITH ANY OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS

          Barbara A. McAuliffe, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Christopher Lipsey (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

         On June 6, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint filed on April 24, 2017, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that it stated a cognizable claim for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Hernandez, Celedon, and Mancilla for allegedly attacking Plaintiff on March 21, 2016. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The Court further found that Plaintiff failed to state any other cognizable claims. Plaintiff was ordered to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court that he was willing to proceed only on the cognizable claim. (ECF No. 9.)[1]

         On June 14, 2017, Plaintiff notified the Court that he did not intend to file any amended complaint and wished to proceed only with the cognizable claims identified by the Court. (ECF No. 11.) Thus, the Court finds it appropriate to order service of the complaint on Defendants Hernandez, Celedon, and Mancilla. The Court will further recommend the dismissal of all other claims and defendants for the failure to state a claim, for the reasons discussed in the June 6, 2017 screening order.[2]

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

         1. Service is appropriate for defendant:

Correctional Officer R. Hernandez
Correctional Officer J. Mancilla
Correctional Officer S. Caledon

         2. The Clerk of the Court shall send to Plaintiff three (3) USM-285 forms, three (3) summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint, filed on April 24, 2017 (ECF No. 1);

         3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.