Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01622/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01622-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEENAN WILKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. HESLOP, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-1622 KJM DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

By order dated September 12, 2022, the court screened plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint. (ECF No. 18.) The court found plaintiff stated an Eighth Amendment claim for 

excessive force against defendant Heslop, a First Amendment claim for retaliation against 

defendant Heslop, and a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against defendants B. 

Velasquez and A. Sawma. The court also found that plaintiff failed to state any other claims

under § 1983 and dismissed plaintiff’s state law claims as conclusory. Plaintiff was given the 

option to proceed on the complaint as screened or to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiff simultaneously informed the court that he wished to file an amended complaint

(ECF No. 21) and filed the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 20). Defendants now request

that this complaint be screened by the court prior to defendants filing a response. (ECF No. 22.)

Case 2:20-cv-01622-DJC-SCR Document 23 Filed 02/03/23 Page 1 of 3
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

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), all complaints filed by prisoners must be screened by 

the court prior to service of said complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint 

will be screened prior to defendants being ordered to respond to the complaint. The court will 

screen the Second Amended Complaint in due course. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion for the court to screen

the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 22) is granted. Screening will occur in due course.

DB:14 

DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/wilk1622.req_scrn

DATED: February 2, 2023

Case 2:20-cv-01622-DJC-SCR Document 23 Filed 02/03/23 Page 2 of 3
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

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONNIE R. GOVEA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT W. FOX, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-2545 DB P

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE ON HOW TO 

PROCEED

Check one:

_____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his Eighth Amendment claims against 

defendants Fox, Clark, Bick, Lewis, and the ten Doe defendant members of the 

Institutional Utilization Management Committee without amending the complaint. 

Plaintiff understands that by going forward without amending the complaint he is 

voluntarily dismissing his state law negligence claim and his Eighth Amendment claim 

against defendant Wolfson without prejudice.

_____ Plaintiff wants to amend the complaint.

DATED:_______________________

Ronnie R. Govea

Plaintiff pro se

Case 2:20-cv-01622-DJC-SCR Document 23 Filed 02/03/23 Page 3 of 3