Satterfield
(PC) Fernandez v. Satterfield
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JORGE FERNANDEZ, Case No. 1:19-cv-01220-DAD-JLT (PC)
Plaintiff, ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED
v. COMPLAINT AS UNNECESSARY
SATTERFIELD, et al., (Doc. 21) Defendants.
16 On February 7, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that it states cognizable claims of retaliation against Defendants Satterfield, Eslick, Jackson, and Salzer, but not against Flores. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff filed a notice that he wishes to proceed only on the claims found cognizable. (Doc. 14.) Accordingly, the Court issued findings and recommendations to dismiss Defendant Flores (Doc. 17) and an order directing service of Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 18). Defendants filed a waiver of service on April 15, 2020 (Doc. 22), and a responsive pleading is due June 5, 2020. On April 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting permission to file a second amended 25 …