From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kindred v. King

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 21, 2016
CASE No. 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2016)

Opinion

CASE No. 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-MJS (PC)

12-21-2016

RICHARD SCOTT KINDRED, Plaintiff, v. AUDREY KING, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS (1) FOR SERVICE OF COGNIZABLE FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS BELL AND BIGOT AND (2) TO DISMISS ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(ECF NO. 16)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 4.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

On November 15, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations for service of Plaintiff's cognizable First Amendment free exercise claims against Defendants Bell and Bigot, and for dismissal of all other claims with prejudice. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff filed no objections.

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.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations, filed November 15, 2016 (ECF No. 16), in full;

2. Plaintiff shall proceed on his First Amendment free exercise claims against Defendants Bell and Bigot;

3. All other claims asserted in the second amended complaint and all other named Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice,

4. Service shall be initiated on the following Defendants:

KENNETH BELL - Lieutenant at Coalinga State Hospital ("CSH")

MARISA BIGOT - Unit Supervisor at CSH

5. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff two (2) USM-285 forms, two (2) summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a copy of the second amended complaint filed August 24, 2016;

6. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall complete and return to the Court the Notice of Submission of Documents along with the following documents:

a. One completed summons for each Defendant listed above,

b. One completed USM-285 form for each Defendant listed above,

c. Three (3) copies of the endorsed second amended complaint filed August 24, 2016;

7. Plaintiff need not attempt service on Defendants and need not request waiver of service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court shall direct the United States Marshal to serve the above-named Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment
of costs;

8. The failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action; and

9. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 21, 2016

/s/_________

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Kindred v. King

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 21, 2016
CASE No. 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2016)
Case details for

Kindred v. King

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD SCOTT KINDRED, Plaintiff, v. AUDREY KING, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 21, 2016

Citations

CASE No. 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2016)