Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02079/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02079-4/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

MYRON A. PAYNE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FUJIOKA, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13cv02079 AWI DLB PC

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

CLARIFY WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED 

ON COGNIZABLE CLAIMS

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Myron A. Payne (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on December 23, 2013. 

On April 23, 2014, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and determined that it stated 

a procedural due process claim against Defendants Fujioka, Rodriguez and Gipson. Plaintiff was 

ordered to either amend his complaint, or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on 

the cognizable claim. 

On October 14, 2014, after the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the 

screening order, Plaintiff filed a notice that he wished to proceed only on the cognizable claims.

Pursuant to Plaintiff’s notice, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations on 

October 17, 2014, recommending (1) that this action go forward against Defendants Fujioka, 

Case 1:13-cv-02079-AWI-DLB Document 22 Filed 12/02/14 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

Rodriguez and Gipson for violation of procedural due process; and (2) dismissing all other 

claims.

Also on October 17, 2014, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to return service 

documents so that the United States Marshal could begin the service process. Plaintiff returned 

the documents and they have been forwarded to the Marshal for service.

On November 24, 2014, despite his prior notification to proceed only on the cognizable 

claims, Plaintiff submitted objections to the Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff’s 

objections are inconsistent to his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims. The 

Court also notes that Plaintiff has already been heard on reconsideration of the screening order, 

and to the extent his objections raise the same arguments, the Court is bound the prior analysis.

Accordingly, within twenty-one (21) days, Plaintiff shall CLARIFY his intent. If 

Plaintiff is willing to proceed on the cognizable claims, he shall notify the Court and the 

Findings and Recommendations will be adopted and this action will move forward accordingly. 

If Plaintiff intends to file an amended complaint, he shall notify the Court and the Findings and 

Recommendations will be vacated. If Plaintiff elects to amend, his amended complaint will 

be screened in due course and the November 25, 2014, order directing the United States 

Marshal to serve will be vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02079-AWI-DLB Document 22 Filed 12/02/14 Page 2 of 2