Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06313/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06313-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE D. RANDLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 6313 REC SMS P 

ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF COMPLAINT

APPROPRIATE AND FORWARDING

DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF 

Willie D. Randle is (“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 action is proceeding on the

Amended Complaint filed on October 6, 2003, against Defendants Almeida, Calderon, B.G.

White, Cpt. T.W. Meadors, Lt. R.L. Johnson, C/O Reed, C/O G. Miranda, and C/O L.

Cardenas for Eight Amendment violations, excessive force, delay in medical treatment, shower

restrictions, conspiracy, and due process. 

 On October 6, 2004, this Court issued an Order dismissing the complaint with leave to

amend finding that the complaint stated cognizable claims against Defendants Cardenas and

Miranda for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff was granted the

option of filing a Second Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies outlined by the Court or

proceeding with the excessive force claim against Defendant Cardenas and Miranda. 

On October 27, 2004, Plaintiff filed a notification of his intent to proceed with the

cognizable excessive force claims against Defendants Cardenas and Miranda and not to file a

Case 1:03-cv-06313-LJO -SMS Document 22 Filed 06/06/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Second Amended Complaint. 

On April 4, 2005, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations that Recommended

that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical claim, shower restrictions, conspiracy and due

process claims against Defendants Almeida, Calderon, White, Meadors, Johnson, and Reed be

dismissed. The Court further recommended that the action proceed on the cognizable claim for

relief under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Cardenas and Miranda. The Court then

issued an Order finding service of the complaint appropriate and forwarded the necessary service

documents to Plaintiff to complete and return to the Court. Plaintiff returned those documents on

April 18, 2005, and on April 22, 2005, the Court directed the U.S. Marshal to serve the

Defendants. 

On May 3, 2005, Plaintiff submitted a Second Amended Complaint but no accompanying

Motion. From the caption, it appears that Plaintiff has amended the complaint to name only the

claims and Defendants against whom the Court found a cognizable claim. However, to the

extent Plaintiff’s submission is for the purpose of having a complaint on file that conforms to the

Court, his submission is unnecessary. As noted above, because Plaintiff informed the Court that

he did not wish to file an Amended Complaint, the Court merely dismissed those claims and

Defendants against whom claims were not cognizable. The Court’s Order finding service of the

Complaint appropriate along with the First Amended Complaint are sufficient to inform the

Defendants of the claims found cognizable by the Court. Accordingly, as Plaintiff’s submission

of a conforming Second Amended Complaint is unnecessary, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to return the LODGED copies of the Second

Amended Complaint to Plaintiff along with a copy of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06313-LJO -SMS Document 22 Filed 06/06/05 Page 2 of 2