Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00820/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00820-5/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 RECALLING ORDER DIRECTING 

USM TO SERVE AMENDED COMPLAINT 

AND DIRECTING A COPY OF THIS 

ORDER TO BE SERVED ON THE UNITED 

STATES MARSHAL (ECF No. 18)

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS 

AND CLAIMS ISSUED ON MAY 15, 2014 

(ECF No. 14)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO FILE LODGED SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT (ECF No. 16)

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.

On August 21, 2014, the Court screened Plaintiff’s original complaint. The Court found 

that the complaint stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Ulit and 

Agtarap, but failed to state any other cognizable section 1983 claim. Accordingly, the Court 

ordered Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his intention to 

proceed only on the cognizable claim against Defendants Ulit and Agtarap. 

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 

Case 1:13-cv-00820-LJO-BAM Document 24 Filed 07/17/14 Page 1 of 3
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

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 

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.) 

As Plaintiff’s submission of a second amended complaint was not consistent with his 

return of the service documents to initiate service of the first amended complaint on Defendants 

Ulit and Agtarap, the Court required Plaintiff to clarify his intention. Specifically, on June 25, 

2014, the Court directed Plaintiff to 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. (ECF No. 21.) 

On July 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of his intent to amend the complaint. Although 

not entirely clear, it appears that Plaintiff wishes to proceed on the second amended complaint. 

(ECF No. 23.) Therefore, the Court will recall its service order and screen the second amended 

complaint, which was lodged with the Court on June 25, 2014. Plaintiff is advised that the Court 

will screen the second amended complaint in due course. 

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-00820-LJO-BAM Document 24 Filed 07/17/14 Page 2 of 3
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

For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The order to serve the first amended complaint, issued on June 25, 2014, is 

RECALLED;

2. The Clerk’s Office is directed to serve a copy of this order on the United States 

Marshals Service; 

3. The Findings and Recommendations regarding dismissal of certain defendants and 

claims, issued on May 15, 2014, is VACATED; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the second amended complaint, which was 

lodged with the Court on June 18, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00820-LJO-BAM Document 24 Filed 07/17/14 Page 3 of 3