Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00820/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00820-3/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

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

ST. MICHAEL BALZARINI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KYLE LEWIS, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13-cv-00820-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

NOTICE CLARIFYING HIS INTENT

(ECF Nos. 16, 17, 18)

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff St. Michael Balzarini (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint on September 10, 2013. The Court screened 

the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that it stated a cognizable claim against 

Defendants Ulit and Agtarap for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment. 

On May 15, 2014, the Court issued an order finding service of the first amended 

complaint appropriate and directing Plaintiff to prepare and submit service documents for 

Defendants Wayne Ulit, M.D., and LVN-CF Agtarap within thirty days. (ECF No. 15.) By 

separate order the Court issued Findings and Recommendations that Defendants Lewis, 

Schwartz, Wang and Swanberger be dismissed, that Plaintiff’s retaliation claim be dismissed and 

that Plaintiff’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief be dismissed from this action. The 

Case 1:13-cv-00820-LJO-BAM Document 21 Filed 06/25/14 Page 1 of 2
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

Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any 

objections were to be filed within thirty days. (ECF No. 14.) 

In lieu of objections, Plaintiff submitted a second amended complaint, which was lodged 

with the Court on June 18, 2014. (ECF No. 16.) Shortly thereafter, on June 25, 2014, Plaintiff 

submitted service documents. (ECF No. 17.) On the same date, the Court issued an order 

directing the United States Marshal to serve the first amended complaint on Defendants Ulit and 

Agtarap. (ECF No. 18.) 

Plaintiff’s submission of a second amended complaint is not consistent with his return of 

the service documents to initiate service of the first amended complaint on Defendants Ulit and 

Agtarap. Plaintiff must clarify his intention for the Court. If Plaintiff intends to proceed on his 

second amended complaint, the Court will recall the order directing service of the first amended 

complaint by the United States Marshal and will then screen the second amended complaint to 

determine if it states a cognizable claim. 

Accordingly, within fourteen (14) days, Plaintiff shall notify the Court in writing if he 

intends to proceed on his first amended complaint or if he wishes the Court to recall its service 

order and screen the second amended complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00820-LJO-BAM Document 21 Filed 06/25/14 Page 2 of 2