Cazares v. Yates

Filing 14

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 1/3/2012 recommending that this action proceed only against Defendants Tarek and Coleman and that other claims and Defendants be dismissed re 9 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 2/6/2012. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SIMON CAZARES, 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00232-AWI-GBC (PC) Plaintiff, v. JAMES A. YATES, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS TAREK AND COLEMAN FOR DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE AND RECOMMENDING THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED / OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS 15 Plaintiff Simon Cazares (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 15, 2008, Plaintiff 17 filed the original complaint. Doc. 1. On March 18, 2010, the Court dismissed the complaint with 18 leave to amend. Doc. 6. On April 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint. Doc. 9. 19 The Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found 20 that Plaintiff only stated a cognizable claim against Defendants Tarek and Coleman for deliberate 21 indifference of a serious medical need. Doc. 12. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either address the 22 shortcomings of the complaint through amendment or to notify the Court of his willingness to 23 proceed on the cognizable claims. Doc. 12. On December 27, 2011, Plaintiff gave notice of his 24 willingness to proceed on the cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Tarek and 25 Coleman. Doc. 13. 26 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 27 1. This action proceed against Defendants Tarek and Coleman for violation of 28 1 1 Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference of a serious 2 medical need; and 3 2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action. 4 5 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 6 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) 7 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 8 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 9 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 10 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 11 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: 0jh02o January 3, 2012 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?