Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00952/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00952-3/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

LONNIE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. LOPEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-CV-00952-LJO-DLB PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO

PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSE

(Doc. 11)

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 20 DAYS

Plaintiff Lonnie Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). On July 14, 2010, the Court ordered

Plaintiff either to file an amended complaint or proceed only on claims found to be cognizable in

the July 14, 2010 Order. The Court also found that Plaintiff had alleged six separate, unrelated

claims, and further ordered Plaintiff to identify which claims Plaintiff wished to proceed with in

this action. On August 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed notice with the Court of Plaintiff’s willingness to

proceed only on claims found to be cognizable, but did not specify which claims. 

The Court identified three claims as cognizable: 1) the April 18, 2010 excessive force

incident involving Defendant J. Lopez; 2) the May 20, 2010 retaliatory denial of psychological

treatment by Defendant Brewer; and 3) the February 27, 2010 retaliatory placement in

administrative segregation by Defendant DaViega. These claims are unrelated and each must be

filed in a separate action. Plaintiff failed to specify which claim Plaintiff wished to proceed with

in this action. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is to identify which one of

the above three claims Plaintiff wishes to retain in this action, within twenty days from the date

1

Case 1:10-cv-00952-LJO -DLB Document 12 Filed 08/17/10 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

of service of this order. The two other claims that are not retained in this action will be

dismissed without prejudice to refiling in a separate action. Failure to comply with this order

will result in the Court selecting which claim will proceed in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 16, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

77e0d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-00952-LJO -DLB Document 12 Filed 08/17/10 Page 2 of 2