Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00046/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00046-2/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

SHAWN PATRICK GREENBLATT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. I. PATEL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00046-SKO PC

SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS AND FINDING SERVICE OF

COMPLAINT APPROPRIATE, PENDING

IDENTIFICATION OF DOE DEFENDANTS

(Docs. 1 and 18) 

Plaintiff Shawn Patrick Greenblatt, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 10, 2012. On October 3, 2012,

the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it states a claim against Defendants Doe 1

and Doe 2 for violation of the Eighth Amendment, arising out of their failure to summon medical

care for Plaintiff. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129

S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-

65 (2007). However, the Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint does not state any Eighth

Amendment claims against Defendants Delio, Davis, I. Patel, N. Patel, Lopez, and Biter, and the

Court ordered Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to

proceed only on the claim found to be cognizable. On November 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed a notice

stating that he does not wish to amend and he is willing to proceed only on his cognizable claim. 

///

///

///

1

Case 1:12-cv-00046-LJO-SKO Document 19 Filed 12/07/12 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

Accordingly, based on Plaintiff’s notice, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action for damages shall proceed against Defendants Doe 1 and Doe 2 for

violation of the Eighth Amendment, arising out of their failure to summon medical

care for Plaintiff;

2. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Delio, Davis, I. Patel, N.

Patel, Lopez, and Biter are dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim; and

3. Service of the complaint by the United States Marshal is appropriate, pending

identification of the Doe defendants.1

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2012 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In a separate order issued concurrently with this order, the Court referred this case to the Pro Bono

1

Program for a limited appointment of counsel to assist Plaintiff in identifying the Doe defendants.

2

Case 1:12-cv-00046-LJO-SKO Document 19 Filed 12/07/12 Page 2 of 2