Binkele

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CURTIS VAUGHN JACKSON, Case No. 18-cv-04098-EMC

8 Plaintiff,

SCHEDULING ORDER

9 v. Docket Nos. 58, 59, 60, 61 10 R. BINKELE, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 This is a pro se prisoner’s civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that is now before the 14 Court for scheduling and miscellaneous matters. 15 The cognizable claims in this action are that: (1) several Defendants were deliberately 16 indifferent to Plaintiff’s safety by housing him at Salinas Valley; (2) several other Defendants 17 were deliberately indifferent to his safety by not preventing or acting quickly enough to stop a 18 fight he was involved in a few weeks after his arrival at Salinas Valley; and (3) several other 19 Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs after the fight. See Docket No. 13 20 (order of service). Service of process was ordered on eleven Defendants. One Defendant (Lam) 21 was later voluntarily dismissed. The remaining ten Defendants were originally represented by the 22 …