Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01915/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01915-0/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

Plaintiff Vance Edward Johnson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff declined magistrate judge jurisdiction on January 4, 2016 (ECF No. 6); therefore, this 

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local 

Rule 302. 

On February 8, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff stated a 

cognizable retaliation claim against Defendant Wilson only. The Court granted Plaintiff the option of 

filing an amended complaint or notifying the Court of his intent to proceed on the retaliation claim 

only against Defendant Wilson. 

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. WILSON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01915-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING THAT ACTION PROCEED 

AGAINST DEFENDANT WILSON FOR 

RETALIATION AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER 

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

[ECF Nos. 1, 8, 9]

ORDER REFERRING MATTER BACK TO 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO INITIATE SERVICE 

OF PROCESS

Case 1:15-cv-01915-LJO-SAB Document 10 Filed 03/03/16 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

On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed only on his retaliation 

claim against Defendant Wilson. (ECF No. 9.) Accordingly, based on Plaintiff’s notice, the Court 

HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. This action shall procced against Defendant Wilson for retaliation in violation of the 

First Amendment;

2. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to state a 

claim; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01915-LJO-SAB Document 10 Filed 03/03/16 Page 2 of 2