Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02022/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02022-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M. Darden
Defendant
Anthony Reed Jones
Plaintiff

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY REED JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. DARDEN,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02022-JSC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO DISMISS JURY DEMAND 

AND FOR DAMAGES

Re: Dkt. No. 19

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. The Court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that, when 

liberally construed, it stated a cognizable claim for relief. The Marshal has served Defendant, and 

Defendant filed an answer along with a jury demand. Plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss the 

jury demand and for damages “under Rule 56.” First, defendant has a right to trial by jury under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(a). Second, Plaintiff’s request for damages stems from his 

confusion that the Court’s determination that his claim is cognizable entitles him to judgment and 

damages. It does not. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be ruled upon after briefing is complete. 

Plaintiff is reminded to read the warning about summary judgment that he was provided with the 

Order of Service and again with Defendant’s motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02022-JSC Document 27 Filed 01/07/16 Page 1 of 1