Johal

(PC) Paschall v. Johal

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 13, 20251:24-cv-00154California525 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

21 On April 16, 2025, this Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 13.) The Court 22 found Plaintiff stated cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical 23 needs claims against Defendants Fu, Smith, Sinclair, Jane Doe, and John Doe but failed to allege 24 any other cognizable claim against any other named defendant. (Id. at 4-10.) Plaintiff was 25 directed to do one of the following within 21 days: (1) notify the Court he did not wish to file a 26 first amended complaint and instead was willing to proceed only on the Eighth Amendment 27 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against these Defendants, the remaining claims to be dismissed; or (2) file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the Court’s order, or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 11-12.) On May 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice indicating his wish to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the Court. (See Doc. 14.) II. ORDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS As an initial matter, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to update the docket for this action to ADD “Jane Doe” and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.