Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01728/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01728-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DUANE REED MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. DUFFY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1728 WBS CKD P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil 

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 26, 2013, the court recommended that this action 

be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint. Because plaintiff has now filed 

an amended complaint, the court’s findings and recommendations will be vacated. 

 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

 In his complaint, plaintiff alleges he has been denied a medically necessary diet at the 

California Medical Facility. Plaintiff essentially admits that pursuant to California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation policy, the diet he seeks is not available except on approval of the 

Case 2:13-cv-01728-WBS-CKD Document 15 Filed 03/13/14 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

Chief Medical Executive at plaintiff’s prison—the California Medical Facility (CMF). Am. 

Compl. at 10, 52-53 & 67-68.

1

 Plaintiff identifies defendant Bick as the Chief Medical Executive 

at CMF.

 Good cause appearing, the court will order that defendant Bick be served with process 

with respect to a claim for denial of medical care arising under the Eighth Amendment. Because 

plaintiff fails to adequately allege that any other defendant is responsible for plaintiff’s failure to 

receive a medically necessary diet, the court will recommend that those defendants be dismissed. 

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

1. The court’s November 26, 2013 findings and recommendations are vacated. 

 2. Service is appropriate for defendant Bick. 

 3. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff a USM-285 forms, a summons, an 

instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed December 4, 2013. 

 4. 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; and 

 d. Two copies of the endorsed amended complaint. 

 5. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendant Bick and need not request waiver of 

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States 

Marshal to serve defendant Bick pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment 

of costs.

 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants Duffy, Thumser, Elam, Carolan, 

Horgan, Allen, J. Jones, S. Jones, Zamora, Matteucci and Toche be dismissed. 

/////

 

1

 Page numbers are those assigned by the court’s electronic docketing system. 

Case 2:13-cv-01728-WBS-CKD Document 15 Filed 03/13/14 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

 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, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 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: March 13, 2014 

1 

moor1728.1

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:13-cv-01728-WBS-CKD Document 15 Filed 03/13/14 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 

DUANE REED MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. DUFFY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1728 CKD P 

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 2:13-cv-01728-WBS-CKD Document 15 Filed 03/13/14 Page 4 of 4