Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00616/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00616-2/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANTWAIN WASHINGTON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M.E. SPEARMAN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-0616-EFB P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in an action brought 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 12, 2020, the court determined that plaintiff’s complaint 

had alleged, for screening purposes, a viable Eighth Amendment claim against defendant 

Schumacher, but had not alleged any viable claims against defendant Spearman. ECF No. 7. The 

court informed plaintiff he could proceed with the claim against defendant Schumacher or file an 

amended complaint within 30 days. Id. Plaintiff has elected to proceed only with the claim 

against defendant Schumacher. See ECF No. 10. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United 

States District Judge to this case. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:19-cv-00616-TLN-JDP Document 12 Filed 03/18/20 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 

Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendant Spearman be 

dismissed without prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: March 18, 2020. 

Case 2:19-cv-00616-TLN-JDP Document 12 Filed 03/18/20 Page 2 of 2