Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00340/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00340-7/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

Plaintiff Craig Reed is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On June 16, 2014, the Court screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and found that 

Plaintiff stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Hinshaw and 

Johnson only and failed to state any other cognizable claims. See Doc. No. 21. The Court granted 

Plaintiff the option of either filing a third amended complaint or notifying the Court of his intent to 

proceed only on the claim found to be cognizable. On June 30, 2014, Plaintiff notified the Court of his 

intent to proceed on the retaliation claim only and dismiss all other claims and defendants from the 

action. See Doc. No. 22. Based on the analysis of the screening order and on Plaintiff’s notification, 

the Court dismisses all claims except for the First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants 

Hinshaw and Jackson.

//

//

CRAIG REED,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT HINSHAW, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00340-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFF STATES 

COGNIZABLE RETALIATION CLAIM AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS HINSHAW AND JOHNSON 

ONLY AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS 

AND DEFENDANTS FROM THE ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM 

FOR RELIEF

[ECF Nos. 18, 21, 22]

Case 1:11-cv-00340-AWI-SAB Document 23 Filed 07/03/14 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. As discussed in the June 16, 2014 screening order (Doc. No. 21), this action shall proceed 

on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed March 5, 2014, against Defendants 

Hinshaw and Johnson for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; 

2. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED from the action for failure to state a 

cognizable claim for relief under section 1983; and

3. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for issuance of service of process. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00340-AWI-SAB Document 23 Filed 07/03/14 Page 2 of 2