Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00807/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00807-21/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

MICHAEL J. PAYAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

H. TATE, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13cv00807 LJO DLB PC

ORDER FINDING COGNIZABLE 

CLAIMS IN FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Michael J. Payan (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on 

May 28, 2013. 

On May 19, 2015, Defendants filed a timely motion for summary judgment based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. The motion is pending. 

On August 25, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend in part. 

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on October 19, 2015.

The Court has screened the First Amended Complaint and finds that it state the following 

cognizable claims: (1) retaliation in violation of the First Amendment by Defendants Bingamon, 

Tate, Vu, Shiesha, V. Baniga, Joaquin, D. Longcrier, Does “for L.D. Zamora,” and Does “for J. 

Lewis;” (2) deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth 

Case 1:13-cv-00807-LJO-BAM Document 84 Filed 11/04/15 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

Amendment against Defendants Bingamon, Tate, Vu, Shiesha, Joaquin, Does “for L.D. 

Zamora,” Baniga, Longcrier and Does for “J. Lewis;” and (3) negligence1against Defendants 

Vu, Tate, Shiesha, Baniga, Joaquin, Does “for L.D. Zamora” and Does “for J. Lewis.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 

Pursuant to the Court’s August 25, 2015, order, Defendants shall inform the Court, within 

thirty (30) days, whether they will (1) accept service for the newly-named (and identified) 

Defendants; and (2) update the pending motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s 

newly added claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 The negligence claim is limited to events occurring after February 9, 2013.

Case 1:13-cv-00807-LJO-BAM Document 84 Filed 11/04/15 Page 2 of 2