Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00809/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00809-11/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY NGUYEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. D. BITER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00809-AWI-SKO PC 

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANTS

ADAMS, TARNOFF, POOL, AND FOSTON,

AND REFERRING MATTER BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO INITIATE

SERVICE OF PROCESS AGAINST

DEFENDANT BITER

(Doc. 36)

Plaintiff AnthonyNguyen, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 18, 2011. Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at

Kern Valley State Prison, alleges that the water at the prison is contaminated with arsenic. 

In an orderfiled on October 11, 2011, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that

it stated an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Biter, but it failed to state a claim against

Defendants Adams, Tarnoff, Pool, and Foston. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff was ordered to

either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on his claim

against Defendant Biter.

On October 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed a notice in which he requested to proceed only on his

cognizable claim against Defendant Biter without filing an amended complaint. Accordingly, it is

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action shall proceed against Defendant Biter on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

water contamination claim;

///

1

Case 1:11-cv-00809-AWI-SKO Document 37 Filed 10/31/11 Page 1 of 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

2. Defendants Adams, Tarnoff, Pool, and Foston are dismissed from this action based

on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim against them; and

3. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to initiate service of process

proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 28, 2011 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2

Case 1:11-cv-00809-AWI-SKO Document 37 Filed 10/31/11 Page 2 of 2