Harrison v. Adams, et al

Filing 289

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Grant in Part and Deny in Part 285 Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss; Fourteen (14) Day Objection Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/22/2016. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 3/10/2016. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL D. HARRISON, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, v. D. ADAMS, et al., Defendants. CASE NO. 1:08-cv-1065-AWI-MJS (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 285) FOURTEEN DEADLINE (14) DAY OBJECTION 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) On July 30, 2013, the Court screened 20 Plaintiff’s Eighth Amended Complaint and found that it stated a cognizable claim against 21 Defendants Jones, Moore, Burns, Dava, Kim, Edmonds, Galvan, C. Gonzalez, M. 22 Gonzalez, Johnson, O’Neal, Parsons, Raygoza, Roth, Tumayo, Urbano, Vicente, Zakari, 23 Bastianon, Campos, Casio, Cisneros, and Coronado for violation of Plaintiff’s rights 24 under the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 160.) On August 26, 2015, summary judgment 25 was granted in favor of Defendants Rabaino-Burns, Kim, and Dava. (ECF No. 266.) 26 Further proceedings in this action have been hampered by difficulties in serving 27 some of the named Defendants. Relevant to the instant motion, re-service on 28 1 Defendants Zakari, Edmonds, and Raygoza was returned unexecuted on more than one 2 occasion. (ECF Nos. 177, 179, 193, 194, 267, 279, 283.) Accordingly, they were 3 dismissed. (ECF No. 284.) Defendants Bastianon and Johnson recently appeared in the 4 action. (ECF Nos. 269, 275.) As a result of their recent appearance, a new scheduling 5 order issued, setting August 29, 2016 as the dispositive motion deadline. (ECF No. 272.) 6 Plaintiff does not wish to delay the instant litigation further and instead desires to 7 proceed to trial. Accordingly, he moves to dismiss Defendants Zakari, Raygoza, 8 Edmonds, Johnson and Bastianon. He asks that the case be set for settlement and/or 9 trial. (ECF No. 285.) Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition and agree that, 10 should these Defendants be dismissed, a new scheduling order is appropriate. 11 The Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s motion be granted in part and denied in 12 part. Because Defendants Zakari, Raygoza, and Edmonds already were dismissed, the 13 motion is moot as to them. However, the Court will recommend that Defendants Johnson 14 and Bastianon be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). 15 16 17 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 285) be granted in part and denied in part; 18 2. Defendants Johnson and Bastianon be dismissed; and 19 3. The matter be referred back to the undersigned for the issuance of orders 20 scheduling a settlement conference, pretrial matters, and trial. 21 The findings and recommendation are submitted to the United States District 22 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 23 fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and recommendation, any party 24 may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 25 document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 26 Recommendation.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 27 (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 28 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 2 1 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 2 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 22, 2016 /s/ 6 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?