Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00685/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00685-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABDELKADER MORCELI,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. MEYERS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:11-cv–00685-AWI-BAM PC

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS

AND DEFENDANTS, AND REFERRING

MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO INITIATE SERVICE OF PROCESS

(ECF Nos. 1, 10, 23)

Plaintiff Abdelkader Morceli is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 10, 2012, the Magistrate Judge

screened Plaintiff’s complaint, and found that it states a claim against Defendant Meyers for

violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and Equal Protection in violation of

the Fourteenth Amendment, but does not state any other claims for relief under section 1983. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff was ordered to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his

willingness to proceed only on the claim found to be cognizable. On September 6, 2012, Plaintiff

filed a motion stating that he does not wish to amend and is willing to proceed only on the claims

found to be cognizable. 

Accordingly, based on Plaintiff’s notice, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action shall proceed on the complaint, filed April 29, 2011. against Defendant

Meyers for violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and Equal

Protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment;

2. Defendants James A. Yates, J. A. Fogel, R. Fisher, Jr., and D. R. Foreman are

1

Case 1:11-cv-00685-AWI-BAM Document 24 Filed 09/17/12 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

dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff ’s failure to state any claims against

them; 

3. Plaintiff’s official capacity claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim; and

4. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to initiate service of process

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 14, 2012 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2

Case 1:11-cv-00685-AWI-BAM Document 24 Filed 09/17/12 Page 2 of 2