Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919-10/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

DAVID ESTRADA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TASSEY, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13cv00919 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

CLARIFY WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED 

ON COGNIZABLE CLAIMS

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this this civil action. Plaintiff filed this action on June 17, 2013. On August 8, 2013, 

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. The Court issued a screening order on September 3, 

2013, and on September 11, 2013, Plaintiff notified the Court of his willingness to proceed on 

the cognizable claims. 

Pursuant to Plaintiff’s notification, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and 

Recommendations on September 20, 2013, that this action proceed on the following claims: 

(1) retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against Defendants Gipson and Espinosa; and 

(2) violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Gipson, Espinosa, Lambert and 

Cavazos. The Court further recommended that the remaining claims, as well as Defendants 

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 35 Filed 10/18/13 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

Savermilch, Musselman, Garcia, Rodriguez, Vogel, Gonzalez, Beard, Cate and Castro, be 

dismissed.

Plaintiff returned service documents and the United States Marshall was directed to serve 

Defendants Gipson, Espinosa, Lambert and Cavazos on October 11, 2013. 

On October 15, 2013, 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.

Accordingly, within twenty-one 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 October 11, 2013, order directing service will be vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 35 Filed 10/18/13 Page 2 of 2