Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05678/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05678-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK WINZER,

Plaintiff,

v.

WACKENHUT CORRECTIONS

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-03-5678-SMS-P

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANTS 

SIMONSON AND GIRGIS, AND CLAIM

AGAINST THEM, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. 50)

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS

ANDREWS, BARNES, AKANNO, AND

STERLING TO FILE RESPONSE TO

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY

DAYS (Doc. 50)

I. Order

Plaintiff Frederick Winzer (“plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403

U.S. 388 (1971). The action was removed to this court by defendants Andrews and Sterling on May

23, 2003, and defendants Andrews, Sterling, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, Richard

Wackenhut, George Wackenhut, Barnes, and Akanno filed a motion for summary judgment on

March 12, 2004. On December 23, 2004, the court denied defendants’ motion for summary

judgment on the ground that defendants failed to meet their burden as the moving parties and this

matter was set for trial. The scheduling order was subsequently vacated and plaintiff was given leave

to amend his complaint. Following several extensions of time, plaintiff filed an amended complaint

on July 28, 2005. Defendants were relieved of their obligation to respond to the amended complaint

pending screening by the court. 

Case 1:03-cv-05678-SMS Document 63 Filed 05/08/06 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

1

 Defendant Steward has not been served. In a separate order issued concurrently with this order, the court

shall direct the United States Marshal to initiate service of process on Steward.

2

On April 5, 2006, the court issued an order screening plaintiff’s amended complaint, finding

that it stated a cognizable claim for relief against defendants Andrews, Barnes, Akanno, Sterling, and

Steward for violation of the Eighth Amendment, and finding that it did not contain a cognizable

Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Simonson and Girgis. The court ordered plaintiff to

either file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies or notify the court 

if he did not wish to file a second amended complaint and wished to proceed only against defendants

Andrews, Barnes, Akanno, Sterling, and Steward for violation of the Eighth Amendment. On May

3, 2006, plaintiff notified the court that he does not intend to file a second amended complaint and

wishes to proceed only against defendants Andrews, Barnes, Akanno, Sterling, and Steward for

violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the court’s screening order of April 5, 2006, and

based on plaintiff’s decision not to file a second amended complaint, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants Simonson and Girgis, and the Eighth Amendment claim against them,

are DISMISSED, without prejudice;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed July 28, 2005,

against defendants Andrews, Barnes, Akanno, Sterling, and Steward on plaintiff’s

Eighth Amendment medical care claim; and 

3. Defendants Andrews, Barnes, Akanno, and Sterling shall file a response to plaintiff’s

amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05678-SMS Document 63 Filed 05/08/06 Page 2 of 2