Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01746/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01746-2/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

MICHAEL MCNEIL,

Plaintiff,

v.

LVN HAYES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO PC

ORDER DISMISSING RETALIATION CLAIM

AND CERTAIN DEFENDANTS PURSUANT

TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE, AND DIRECTING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO ISSUE SERVICE

DOCUMENTS

(Docs. 17, 19, 20)

Plaintiff Michael McNeil, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 23, 2010. On March 12, 2012, the

Magistrate Judge issued a screening order and found that Plaintiff’s second amended complaint

states cognizable claims against Defendants Hayes, Raman, Soto, Byers, Doe, and Rotman for

violation of the Eighth Amendment, but it does not state an Eighth Amendment claim against any

other named defendant and it does not state a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim. 28 1

U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff was directed to either file a third amended complaint or notify the Court

of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). On March 20,

2012, Plaintiff filed a notice declining to amend and agreeing to proceed only on his cognizable

claims.

///

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint as a matter of right and a second amended complaint with leave of

1

court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). This is the first screening conducted by the Court.

1

Case 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO Document 21 Filed 03/23/12 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

Accordingly, based on Plaintiff’s election to proceed without amending and for the reasons

set forth by the Magistrate Judge in the screening order, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action for damages shall proceed on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed

on June 28, 2011, on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claims against

Defendants Hayes, Raman, Soto, Byers, Doe, and Rotman;

2. Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim;

3. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is dismissed for failure to state a claim;

4. Defendants Villasno, Enenmoh, Capra, Miller, and Guiteras are dismissed based on

Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them; and

5. The Magistrate Judge shall provide Plaintiff with the documents necessary to initiate

service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 22, 2012 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2

Case 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO Document 21 Filed 03/23/12 Page 2 of 2