Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00715/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00715-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID SEGOVIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0715 CKD P (TEMP)

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed December 19, 2014, plaintiff’s complaint was 

dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an amended 

complaint.

The amended complaint states a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(b). Specifically, plaintiff has adequately alleged deliberate indifference to a serious 

medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants Peters, Convalecer and 

Moon. If the allegations of the amended complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable 

opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. As to the remaining defendants, the 

undersigned concludes that the first amended complaint does not cure the defects of the original 

complaint as set forth in the December 19, 2014 screening order. See Daniels-Hall v. National 

Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010) (while the court must assume plaintiff’s factual 

Case 2:14-cv-00715-GEB-DB Document 12 Filed 01/11/16 Page 1 of 4
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

2

allegations are true, it is not required to accept allegations that are “merely conclusory, 

unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.”) Thus the undersigned will 

recommend that all defendants other than Peters, Convalecer, and Moon be dismissed from this 

action. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: Peters, Convalecer and Moon. 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff three USM-285 forms, one summons, an 

instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed January 16, 2015.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1 above; 

and 

d. Four copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed January 16, 2015.

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service. 

Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to 

serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment 

of costs.

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. All defendants other than Peters, Convalecer and Moon be dismissed from this action. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

/////

/////

Case 2:14-cv-00715-GEB-DB Document 12 Filed 01/11/16 Page 2 of 4
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

3

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: January 11, 2016

hm/sego0715.1amd.new

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00715-GEB-DB Document 12 Filed 01/11/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff,

v.

Defendant.

No. 

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF 

DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order 

filed _____________________ :

____ completed summons form

____ completed USM-285 forms

____ copies of the ___________________ 

 Complaint

DATED: 

________________________________ 

Plaintiff

Case 2:14-cv-00715-GEB-DB Document 12 Filed 01/11/16 Page 4 of 4