Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02088/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02088-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carl Ethridge
Plaintiff
V. Lawrence
Defendant
C. Rasey
Defendant
Reyna
Defendant
F.A. Rodriguez
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

Plaintiff Carl Ethrdige is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On December 16, 2013, the Court screening Plaintiff’s original complaint filed on December 

28, 2012, and found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable retaliation claim against Defendants F.A. 

Rodriguez, Reyna, C. Rasey, and V. Lawrence. However, Plaintiff did not state a cognizable 

retaliation claim against any of the additional unidentified Doe defendants and Plaintiff was granted 

the option of either filing an amended complaint or notifying the Court of his intent to proceed against 

the above-named defendants only. 

On March 12, 2014, Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed on the retaliation 

against Defendants Rodriguez, Reyna, Rasey, and Lawrence only. (ECF No. 16.) Accordingly, as 

advised in the Court’s December 16, 2013, screening order, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the 

any of the unidentified “Doe” defendants, and Findings and Recommendations to dismiss those “Doe” 

CARL ETHRIDGE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-02088-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING 

UNIDENTIFIED DOE DEFENDANTS FROM THE 

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF

[ECF No. 17]

Case 1:12-cv-02088-AWI-SAB Document 18 Filed 04/18/14 Page 1 of 2
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

defendants was issued on March 13, 2014. The Findings and Recommendation was served on 

Plaintiff and contained notice that Objections to the Findings and Recommendation were to be filed 

within fifteen days. No Objections were filed. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on March 13, 2014, is adopted in full; and

2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendants F.A. 

Rodriguez, Reyna, C. Rasey, and V. Lawrence;

3. All unidentified “Doe” defendants are DISMISSED from the action for failure to state a 

cognizable claim for relief;

4. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for initiation of service of process. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 1:12-cv-02088-AWI-SAB Document 18 Filed 04/18/14 Page 2 of 2