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)

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