Simmons v. Hedgpeth

Filing 51

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants re 47 , 50 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 4/23/13. Referred to Judge O'Neill; Thirty-Day Objection Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

CHRISTOPHER I SIMMONS,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01058-LJO-SAB (PC)
FINDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSING CERTAIN
CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

v.
ANTHONY HEDGPETH, et al.,

13

(ECF Nos. 47 & 50)

Defendants.

(THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE)
/

14
15

Plaintiff Christopher I. Simmons (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

16

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 15, 2013, the Court

17

screened Plaintiff’s complaint, and found that it states (1) cognizable claims against Defendants

18

Grissom, Keiley, St. Lucia, Ellstrom and Does #1-10 (nurses) for deliberate indifference toward

19

Plaintiff's "heat risk" condition, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (2) cognizable claims against

20

Defendants Ellstrom, Rients, Sauceda, Akanno and Rufino for deliberate indifference arising from

21

the deprivation of Plaintiff's pain medication, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and (3)

22

cognizable retaliation claims against Defendant Rients, Akanno, Sauceda, Rufino, and Ellstrom, in

23

violation of the First Amendment. The Court found other claims that were improperly joined. (ECF

24

No. 47.)

25

willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. On April 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed

26

a notice stating that he does not wish to amend and is willing to proceed only on his cognizable

27

claims identified by the Court. (ECF No. 50.)

28

///

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

1

1

Accordingly, based on Plaintiff’s notice, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

2

1.

3
4

St. Lucia, Ellstrom, Rients, Sauceda, Akanno, Rufino and Does #1-10 (nurses); and
2.

5
6

This action shall proceed as one for damages against Defendants Grissom, Keiley,

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Anthony Hedgpeth, Nate Dill, Jr., and Rubles
are dismissed for failure to state a claim.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

7

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty

8

(30) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

9

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

10

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

11

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

12

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:
i1eed4

April 23, 2013
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2