Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01458/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01458-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tony Allen
Plaintiff
Anderson
Defendant
Stroth
Defendant

Document Text:

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

TONY ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDERSON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1458 JAM CKD P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On August 7, 2013, the court found that 

plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) against defendants 

Anderson and Stroth. On that same day, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Good cause 

appearing, plaintiff’s original complaint will be dismissed and this action will proceed on 

plaintiff’s amended complaint.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint states cognizable claims under the ADA and the Eighth 

Amendment against defendants Anderson and Stroth. Accordingly, plaintiff will be permitted to 

proceed on those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. However, the court will recommend that 

defendant Ju be dismissed.

Plaintiff alleges that he possesses special shoes designed to help alleviate back pain. On 

at least three occasions, defendants Anderson and Stroth refused to allow plaintiff to wear his 

Case 2:13-cv-01458-JAM-CKD Document 15 Filed 08/21/13 Page 1 of 4
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

special shoes while plaintiff met visitors in the visiting room at his prison. Plaintiff asserts this 

caused him great pain. Instead of allowing plaintiff to wear his special shoes, Stroth and 

Anderson forced plaintiff to wear state-issued boots. Plaintiff alleges that at some point 

defendant Ju modified plaintiff’s medical records concerning when plaintiff should be allowed to 

wear his special shoes. However, plaintiff fails to point to anything which reasonably suggests 

that Ju was involved in the decision to preclude plaintiff from wearing his special shoes while 

visiting, that Ju did anything which contributed to plaintiff suffering injury, or that Ju violated 

plaintiff’s federal rights in any way. Therefore, the court will recommend that defendant Ju be 

dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed and this action will proceed on plaintiff’s amended 

complaint (ECF No. 12).

2. Service of process is appropriate for defendant Stroth.

3. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff a USM-285 form, summons, an instruction 

sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed in this court on August 7, 2013.

4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for defendant Stroth; and 

d. Two copies of the endorsed amended complaint. 

5. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendant Stroth and need not request waiver of 

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States 

Marshal to serve defendant Stroth pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment 

of costs.

6. Defendant Anderson shall file his response to plaintiff’s amended complaint within 21 

days of defendant Stroth’s appearance in this action or when otherwise advised to do so by court 

order.

Case 2:13-cv-01458-JAM-CKD Document 15 Filed 08/21/13 Page 2 of 4
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

3

IT IS HERBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Ju be dismissed.

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.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: August 21, 2013

1

alle1458.1(b)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-01458-JAM-CKD Document 15 Filed 08/21/13 Page 3 of 4
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

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONY ALLEN

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDERSON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1458 JAM CKD P 

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF 

DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order 

filed _____________________:

____ completed summons form

____ completed USM-285 forms

____ copies of the ___________________ 

Amended Complaint

DATED: 

________________________________ 

Plaintiff

Case 2:13-cv-01458-JAM-CKD Document 15 Filed 08/21/13 Page 4 of 4