Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00576/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00576-6/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

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

RONNIE JEROME LAWSON,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

USP ATWATER, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-00576-EPG-PC

 

ORDER VACATING ORDER 

DIRECTING SERVICE BY U. S.

MARSHAL, ISSUED ON MAY 25, 

2016

(ECF No. 28.)

ORDER VACATING ORDER 

DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS FROM THIS ACTION, 

ISSUED ON MAY 10, 2016

(ECF No. 24.)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO:

 (1) FILE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT LODGED ON MAY 13, 

2016 (ECF No. 25); AND

 (2) SERVE A COPY OF THIS 

ORDER ON THE U.S. MARSHAL

On May 25, 2016, the Court issued an order in this case directing the U.S. Marshal to 

serve the First Amended Complaint upon defendants Alvarado and Lepe. (ECF No. 1.) This 

order shall now be vacated.

The Court shall also vacate its order issued on May 10, 2016, dismissing certain claims 

and defendants from this action. (ECF No. 24.) Further, the Clerk shall be directed to file the 

Second Amended Complaint lodged by Plaintiff on May 13, 2016. (ECF No. 25.)

Case 1:14-cv-00576-EPG Document 29 Filed 05/31/16 Page 1 of 3
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

I. BACKGROUND

Ronnie Jerome Lawson (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 

388 (1971). 

II. ORDER DIRECTING MARSHAL TO SERVE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

On November 2, 2015, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to either file a

Second Amended Complaint or notify the Court that he is willing to proceed only on the claims 

found cognizable by the Court in the First Amended Complaint, within thirty days. (ECF No.

16.) On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice informing the Court that he was willing to 

proceed with the First Amended Complaint on only the claims found cognizable by the Court. 

(ECF No. 23.) On May 10, 2016, the Court issued an order sending service documents to 

Plaintiff for completion and return to the Court. (ECF No. 24.) On May 20, 2016, Plaintiff 

returned the completed service documents to the Court. (ECF No. 27.) On May 25, 2016, the 

Court issued an order directing the U.S. Marshal to serve the First Amended Complaint upon 

defendants Alvarado and Lupe. (ECF No. 28.)

However, on May 13, 2016, Plaintiff notified the Court that he changed his mind and no 

longer wishes to proceed with the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff lodged a 

Second Amended Complaint for the Court’s review. (Id.) Based on Plaintiff’s notice of May 

13, 2016, the Court now vacates the May 25, 2016 order directing the U.S. Marshal to serve the 

First Amended Complaint. 

III. ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

On May 10, 2016, based on Plaintiff’s notice of May 6, 2016, that he was willing to 

proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the Court in the First Amended Complaint, the 

Court issued an order dismissing certain claims and defendants from this action. (ECF No. 24.) 

Given that Plaintiff has now changed his mind about proceeding with the First Amended 

Complaint, and instead wishes to proceed with the Second Amended Complaint, the Court shall 

vacate its order of May 10, 2016. 

///

Case 1:14-cv-00576-EPG Document 29 Filed 05/31/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

IV. LODGED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

On May 13, 2016, Plaintiff lodged a Second Amended Complaint for the Court’s 

review. (ECF No. 25.) The Clerk of Court shall be directed to file the Second Amended 

Complaint. The Court shall screen the Second Amended Complaint in due course.

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court’s order directing the U.S. Marshal to serve the First Amended 

Complaint upon defendants Alvarado and Lepe, issued on May 25, 2016, is 

VACATED;

2. The Court’s order dismissing certain claims and defendants from this action, 

issued on May 10, 2016, is VACATED;

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to:

(1) File the Second Amended Complaint which was lodged by Plaintiff on 

May 13, 2016, and

(2) Serve a copy of this order on the U.S. Marshal; and

4. The Court shall screen the Second Amended Complaint in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00576-EPG Document 29 Filed 05/31/16 Page 3 of 3