Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01118/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01118-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
S. Honnold
Defendant
Vance Edward Johnson
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. HONNOLD, 

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01118-LJO-MJS

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

CLARIFY 

(ECF No. 15)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 6.) No other parties 

have appeared in the action.

On September 10, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and concluded 

that Plaintiff stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim against 

Defendant Honnold, but no other claims or Defendants. (ECF No. 12.) The Court 

ordered Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness 

to proceed only on his cognizable claim. On September 25, 2015, Plaintiff notified the 

Court of his willingness to forgo an amended complaint and proceed with his cognizable 

claim. (ECF No. 13.) On September 29, 2015, the Court issued findings and 

recommendations to allow Plaintiff to proceed with his cognizable claim and dismiss the 

Case 1:15-cv-01118-LJO-MJS Document 16 Filed 11/12/15 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

remaining retaliation claim. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and 

recommendations arguing that he stated a cognizable retaliation claim and wanted to 

proceed with it.

Plaintiff’s objections conflict with his notification to the Court that he was willing to 

proceed only on his cognizable medical indifference claim. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

Plaintiff, within 30 days from the date of service of this Order, shall clarify 

whether he wishes to proceed on his cognizable medical indifference claim 

against Defendant Honnold alone or wishes to file an amended complaint 

re-pleading his retaliation claim. If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended 

pleading, the Court will vacate the findings and recommendations (ECF 

No. 14) and issue a new screening order on Plaintiff’s amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 12, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01118-LJO-MJS Document 16 Filed 11/12/15 Page 2 of 2