Steele v. Enenmoh et al
Filing
14
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that pursuant to 28:1915A, this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 1983, and that this dismissal be subject to the "three-strikes" provision ;re 11 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint filed by Tejay A. Steele ; referred to Judge O'Neill,signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 06/22/2015. Objections to F&R due by 7/27/2015 (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TEJAY A. STEELE,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
1:11-cv-01578-LJO-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE
DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(Doc. 11.)
vs.
A. ENENMOH, et al.,
15
Defendants.
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS
16
17
18
19
20
I.
BACKGROUND
21
Tejay A. Steele ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights
22
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on
23
September 19, 2011. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint on October 14,
24
2011, and the Second Amended Complaint on February 6, 2012. (Docs. 6, 7.) On July 25,
25
2014, the court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, with
26
leave to amend. (Doc. 8.) On October 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Third Amended Complaint.
27
(Doc. 11.)
28
The Third Amended Complaint is now before the court for screening.
1
1
II.
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
2
The in forma pauperis statute provides that Athe court shall dismiss the case at any time
3
if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief
4
may be granted.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). “Rule 8(a)‟s simplified pleading standard
5
applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983
6
actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). A
7
complaint must contain Aa short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
8
entitled to relief . . . .@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Such a statement must simply give the
9
defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
10
Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. Detailed factual allegations are not required, but A[t]hreadbare
11
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
12
suffice,@ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic
13
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and courts Aare not required to
14
indulge unwarranted inferences,@ Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir.
15
2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted as
16
true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. However, “the liberal pleading standard
17
. . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9
18
(1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements
19
of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251,
20
1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).
21
III.
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
22
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad,
23
California. The events at issue in the Third Amended Complaint allegedly occurred at the
24
California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF) in Corcoran, California, when Plaintiff
25
was incarcerated there. Plaintiff names as defendants Dr. Anthony Enenmoh, Dr. Edward
26
Grossman, Nurse Rashanda Dickson, Warden Kathleen Allison, and Dr. Olga Beregovskaya.
27
Plaintiff alleges that he is near-sighted and legally blind without corrective lenses. On
28
October 23, 2008, Plaintiff was transferred to SATF and allowed to retain his contact lenses in
2
1
his possession. On November 18, 2008, Dr. Rotman provided Plaintiff with a six-month
2
chrono for saline solution to care for his contact lenses.
3
On January 8, 2009, Ophthalmologist Sofinski informed Plaintiff that he was required
4
to try wearing eyeglasses before his contact lens chrono would be renewed, due to a new policy
5
limiting which patients would be provided with a contact lens chrono. Plaintiff was provided
6
with an eyeglass prescription and one additional supply of contact lenses.
7
Plaintiff wore the eyeglasses and experienced severe pain. In June and July 2009,
8
Plaintiff filed requests for medical care to defendant Nurse Dickson and other medical staff,
9
informing them of his pain and concern that his eyes were being damaged. Defendant Dickson
10
did not schedule an immediate exam. Plaintiff’s contact lens supply was low, and he was
11
forced to wear the eyeglasses or his expired pair of contact lenses.
12
On July 14, 2009, Plaintiff was scheduled by Nurse Dickson to see defendant Dr.
13
Sofinski, who confirmed that the eyeglasses prescription was inaccurate. Dr. Sofinski told
14
Plaintiff that correction of his vision with contact lenses, rather than eyeglasses, would be more
15
effective, due to the disparity of his vertex distance. Dr. Sofinski told Plaintiff that defendant
16
Dr. Enenmoh would make the final decision whether Plaintiff could have contact lenses. After
17
the exam, Nurse Dickson belittled Plaintiff, accusing him of being a malingerer to obtain
18
contact lenses.
19
temporary contact lens chrono as ordered by Dr. Sofinski.
Nurse Dickson told Plaintiff he would not be seeing Dr. Rotman for a
20
On July 15, 2009, Plaintiff was examined by defendant Dr. Grossman who agreed that
21
his vision could be better corrected with contact lenses, but that contact lenses were not a
22
medical necessity. After the exam, Nurse Dickson brought Plaintiff’s new prescription to him
23
but would not discuss his concerns that the strength of the prescription was markedly different
24
than his contact lens prescription. Plaintiff filed two medical services forms expressing his
25
concerns that the new prescription was inaccurate.
26
On July 21, 2009, Plaintiff filed the first of several memoranda to defendant Dr.
27
Enenmoh and Dr. Beregovskaya outlining his eyeglass problems in detail. Plaintiff did not
28
receive a reply. On August 7, 2009, Primary Care Physician Dr. Peters ordered Plaintiff
3
1
additional saline solution and submitted a referral for Plaintiff to be examined by an
2
ophthalmologist. Plaintiff received a letter from a private optometrist discussing the benefits of
3
contact lenses and forwarded it to his doctors and Warden Allison. Plaintiff filed requests to be
4
seen at the medical clinic, which was supervised by defendant Nurse Dixon. Plaintiff was told
5
that he would not be seen as requested by his primary care physician, but instead would be seen
6
as ordered by the ophthalmologist. This was a deviation from medical care policy which
7
Plaintiff attributes to Nurse Dickson. Plaintiff received notice in November 2009 from Dr.
8
Beregovskaya that his contact lens chrono would not be renewed, per the July 29, 2008 policy
9
memo.
10
On December 31, 2009, Plaintiff’s wife contacted R.N. Ybarra, a nurse at SATF in
11
charge of the Patient Advocacy Program, who requested an exam for Plaintiff to determine
12
suitability for contact lenses and the possibility of Lasik eye surgery by a private physician at
13
no cost to the state. On January 5, 2010, Dr. Rashid examined Plaintiff, noted the July 29, 2008
14
memo about contact lenses, and asked Plaintiff to write to the Chief Medical Officer (Dr.
15
Enenmoh) about having Lasik surgery. On February 2, 2009, Dr. Rashid indicated to Plaintiff
16
that Lasik surgery and contact lenses were not medically indicated in Plaintiff’s medical file,
17
and that he should obtain eyeglasses as provided by the state.
18
On March 1, 2010, Plaintiff’s wife again wrote to Warden Allison asking for Lasik
19
surgery for Plaintiff, indicating that all costs would be provided in advance and expressing
20
Plaintiff’s continuing problems with the eyeglasses. Defendant Dr. Beregovskaya replied to
21
Plaintiff’s wife, indicating that no medical indication exists for the performance of Lasik or
22
contact lenses. Dr. Beregovskaya cited cost as a determining factor under state law, which was
23
not applicable in Plaintiff’s case.
24
On April 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed a request for medical services, noting his severe
25
headaches and dizziness from wearing eyeglasses. Plaintiff was scheduled and would be
26
ducated.
27
On May 11, 2010, Plaintiff’s wife again wrote to Warden Allison requesting
28
reconsideration of the request for Lasik surgery, noting that another inmate housed at SATF,
4
1
Phillip Spector, had been allowed by Defendants to receive treatment by private physicians for
2
tooth repair, which did not meet the standard for medical necessity forming the basis of Dr.
3
Beregovskaya’s denial of Plaintiff’s request for Lasik surgery.
4
spokesperson’s statement in the L.A. Times that “inmates can seek to visit private physicians or
5
dentists if they can afford to not only pay for treatment, but cover the state’s transportation and
6
security costs.” (Doc. 11 at 22:18-20.)
She also noted a CDCR
7
On May 23, 2010, Plaintiff submitted another request for medical services, informing
8
Nurse Dickson that his headaches were becoming intolerable and other inmates had been seen
9
by the optometrist ahead of him. The clinic only replied, “You are scheduled and will be
10
ducated.” (Id. at 23 ¶58.) R.N. Page told Plaintiff that she and other staff believed it was
11
wrong that another inmate was able to obtain treatment by his private physician, but Plaintiff’s
12
requests were denied.
13
protection claim.
She offered to testify for Plaintiff if he decided to file an equal
14
On June 30, 2010, Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Grossman who informed Plaintiff that
15
the previous eyeglass prescription from July 15, 2009 was incorrect, causing Plaintiff’s pain
16
and suffering.
17
incorrect.
Dr. Grossman provided a new prescription, which was later found to be
18
On July 1, 2010, Warden Allison denied Plaintiff’s wife’s request for reconsideration
19
under CCF § 3350.1(b) which provides “surgery not medically necessary shall not be
20
provided,” with cost as a determinative fact. Plaintiff contends that Lasik eye surgery should
21
be deemed medically necessary because it is not cosmetic or elective surgery, and Plaintiff’s
22
vision disorder is a physical eye birth defect. Plaintiff’s wife appealed the denial, and the
23
appeal was denied in mid-2012.
24
On August 7, 2010, Plaintiff submitted a request to the Office of Administrative Law
25
requesting a determination whether the July 29, 2008 memorandum prohibiting contact lens
26
solution being dispensed in many situations was an “underground regulation” in violation of
27
the Administrative Procedures Act. (Id. at 26 ¶69.) Plaintiff also filed an inmate medical care
28
appeal which was denied at the Director’s Level of Review on March 29, 2011.
5
1
On September 17, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law suggested that Plaintiff
2
contact the Federal Receiver regarding the July 29, 2008 memo regarding contact lens solution.
3
Plaintiff did so and received a reply letter declining his request as inapplicable to the Federal
4
Receivership.
5
On November 10, 2010, Plaintiff was again examined by Dr. Grossman, who
6
negligently stated that the June 30, 2010 prescription provided by him was correct, implying
7
that Plaintiff was a malingerer, stating, “This is just a mean, mean prison. They won’t let you
8
have contacts.” (Id. at 28 ¶76.) Plaintiff observed Dr. Grossman throwing a document from
9
Plaintiff’s medical file in the wastebasket. At the end of the exam, Plaintiff retrieved the exam
10
notes from the wastebasket and was forced to relinquish it to Officer Pilgrim. Another inmate
11
saw Officer Pilgrim return the document to Dr. Grossman, who returned it to the wastebasket
12
and later alleged he was “transferring notes.” (Id. at 29 ¶78.)
13
On December 21, 2010, Plaintiff submitted a claim to the California Victim
14
Compensation and Government Claims Board (CVCGCB) regarding the events at issue. On
15
December 27, 2010, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Prison Law Office regarding his inadequate
16
vision care. On December 29, 2010, and January 11, 2011, Plaintiff sent letters to SATF’s
17
CEO V. Colunga regarding his vision care problems. According to defendant Dr. Enenmoh,
18
the first letter was sent to him for response. On January 27, 2011, Plaintiff sent another letter to
19
CEO Colunga and defendant Dr. Enenmoh.
20
On February 9, 2011, Dr. Enenmoh sent Plaintiff to Fresno for an off-site
21
ophthalmology/optometry consultation. Plaintiff did not have his glasses with him at the time
22
of the examination, because he did not know he was going to an off-site consultation.
23
Therefore, Plaintiff had worn his expired contact lenses. At the consultation, Dr. Nguyen found
24
that the previous eyeglasses prescriptions from Dr. Grossman were wrong and were the cause
25
of the severity of Plaintiff’s adverse effects.
26
prescription but not a “pupil distance.” (Id. at 31 ¶85.) On February 23, 2011, Plaintiff
27
received a letter from Dr. Enenmoh dated February 8, 2011, informing Plaintiff that he would
28
be evaluated by an independent optometrist.
6
Dr. Nguyen provided a new eyeglasses
1
On March 29, 2011, Plaintiff’s medical care appeal was denied at the Director’s Level
2
of Review, and Plaintiff sent the denial to the Prison Law Office as requested. On May 11,
3
2011, Plaintiff received notice from the CVCGCB that his issues were outside their scope and
4
appropriate for resolution in the court system.
5
On May 23, 2011, Plaintiff was taken to see Dr. Rashid who determined that Plaintiff’s
6
“pupil distance is 64mm.” (Id. at 31-32 ¶90.) Dr. Grossman had determined that Plaintiff’s
7
pupil distance was 66mm, 65mm, and 63mm on separate occasions, and Dr. Sofinski
8
determined it was 65mm.
9
inconsistencies illuminate Dr. Grossman’s deliberate indifference or negligence.
Plaintiff alleges that pupil distance does not change, and the
10
For more than 20 months, Plaintiff suffered symptoms such as debilitating migraine
11
headaches, constant dizziness, severe burning pain and sharp shooting pains in his eyes, vision
12
abnormalities, blurred vision, painful muscle spasms, irritability, reduction in motivation to
13
exercise, fatigue, dry eye syndrome, and emotional distress, affecting Plaintiff’s ability to read,
14
write, and work.
15
In November 2011, Dr. Enenmoh approved Dr. Kokor’s request for Plaintiff to be
16
provided with a permanent contact lens and supplies chrono, and on March 2, 2012, Plaintiff
17
received the chrono. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to ensure his chrono and saline
18
solution order are not rescinded. Plaintiff also requests monetary damages, declaratory relief,
19
and attorney’s fees.
20
IV.
21
22
23
24
25
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:
Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by
the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
redress.
26
42 U.S.C. ' 1983. ASection 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal
27
Constitution and laws.@ Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997)
28
(internal quotations omitted). ATo the extent that the violation of a state law amounts to the
7
1
deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the federal
2
Constitution, Section 1983 offers no redress.@ Id.
3
To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted
4
under color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the
5
Constitution or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir.
6
2006). AA person >subjects= another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the
7
meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another=s affirmative acts,
8
or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of
9
which complaint is made.@ Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). AThe
10
requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct, personal
11
participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which
12
the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional
13
injury.@ Id. at 743-44.
Medical Claim – Eighth Amendment
14
A.
15
A[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an
16
inmate must show >deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.=@ Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d
17
1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1976)).
18
The two-part test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) A>a serious
19
medical need= by demonstrating that >failure to treat a prisoner=s condition could result in
20
further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,=@ and (2) Athe
21
defendant=s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.@ Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting
22
McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX
23
Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations
24
omitted)). Deliberate indifference is shown by Aa purposeful act or failure to respond to a
25
prisoner=s pain or possible medical need, and harm caused by the indifference.@ Id. (citing
26
McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060).
27
officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown by
28
the way in which prison physicians provide medical care.@ Id. Where a prisoner is alleging a
Deliberate indifference may be manifested Awhen prison
8
1
delay in receiving medical treatment, the delay must have led to further harm in order for the
2
prisoner to make a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. McGuckin at
3
1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm=rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir.
4
1985)).
5
ADeliberate indifference is a high legal standard.@ Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,
6
1060 (9th Cir. 2004). AUnder this standard, the prison official must not only >be aware of the
7
facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,= but
8
that person >must also draw the inference.=@ Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
9
825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994)). A>If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but
10
was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the
11
risk.=@ Id. (quoting Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir.
12
2002)).
13
constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 1060. A[E]ven gross negligence
14
is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.@ Id. (citing Wood v. Housewright, 900
15
F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990)).
AA showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a
16
AA difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities
17
regarding treatment does not give rise to a ' 1983 claim.@ Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337,
18
1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal citation omitted). To prevail, plaintiff Amust show that the course
19
of treatment the doctors chosen was medically unacceptable under the circumstances . . . and . .
20
. that they chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff=s health.@
21
Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted).
22
Plaintiff has demonstrated that he had a serious medical need, because the eyeglasses
23
provided to him caused him debilitating migraine headaches, constant dizziness, severe burning
24
pain and sharp shooting pains in his eyes, vision abnormalities, and emotional distress.
25
Plaintiff argues that Lasik surgery or contact lenses are medically necessary to prevent his
26
serious symptoms.
27
Defendants deprived him of contact lenses, or disapproved a contact lens chrono, knowing that
28
///
However, Plaintiff has not specifically alleged facts that any of the
9
1
a proper eyeglass prescription was not possible. Moreover, Plaintiff indicates that he was
2
wearing contact lenses at his most recent outside appointment.
3
Plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating that any of the Defendants acted with
4
deliberate indifference. Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard. Toguchi, 391 F.3d at
5
1060. Plaintiff has not shown that any Defendant acted, or failed to act, while knowing of and
6
consciously disregarding a serious risk to Plaintiff’s health. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a
7
medical care claim under the Eighth Amendment.
8
B.
9
The Equal Protection Clause requires that persons who are similarly situated be treated
10
alike. City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249
11
(1985); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 891 (9th Cir. 2008). An equal protection claim may
12
be established by showing that Defendants intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff based
13
on his membership in a protected class, Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement v. City of
14
Modesto, 583 F.3d 690, 702-03 (9th Cir. 2009); Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071,1082 (9th
15
Cir. 2003), Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001), or that similarly
16
situated individuals were intentionally treated differently without a rational relationship to a
17
legitimate state purpose, Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agr., 553 U.S. 591, 601-02, 128
18
S.Ct. 2146 (2008); Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564, 120 S.Ct. 1073
19
(2000); Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 592 (9th Cir. 2008); North Pacifica LLC
20
v. City of Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th Cir. 2008).
Equal Protection
21
Plaintiff has not alleged any facts demonstrating that he was intentionally discriminated
22
against on the basis of his membership in a protected class, or that he was intentionally treated
23
differently than other similarly situated inmates without a rational relationship to a legitimate
24
state purpose. Plaintiff argues that his rights to equal protection were violated because another
25
inmate was approved for outside medical treatment and Plaintiff was not. The mere fact that
26
two inmates both requested to see private doctors for outside medical treatment does not make
27
them similarly situated for purposes of the equal protection clause. Moreover, Plaintiff has not
28
///
10
1
shown that he was intentionally treated differently. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for
2
relief for violation of his right to equal protection.
3
C.
4
Plaintiff brings claims against Defendants for violation of various California state laws.
5
Plaintiff is advised that violation of state tort law, state regulations, rules and policies of the
6
CDCR, or other state law is not sufficient to state a claim for relief under ' 1983. To state a
7
claim under ' 1983, there must be a deprivation of federal constitutional or statutory rights.
8
See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976). Although the court may exercise supplemental
9
jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under
10
federal law. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1367. In this instance, the Court fails to find any cognizable
11
federal claims in the Third Amended Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff=s state claims fail.
12
V.
State Law Claims
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
13
The Court finds that Plaintiff=s Third Amended Complaint fails to state any claims upon
14
which relief can be granted under ' 1983 against any of the Defendants. In this action, the
15
Court previously granted Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint, with guidance by the
16
Court. The Court finds that the deficiencies outlined above are not capable of being cured by
17
amendment, and therefore further leave to amend should not be granted. Lopez v. Smith, 203
18
F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000).
19
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A,
20
this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
21
granted under ' 1983, and that this dismissal be subject to the Athree-strikes@ provision set forth
22
in 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g). Silva v. Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011).
23
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
24
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within thirty
25
(30) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file
26
written objections with the court.
27
Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
28
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.
Such a document should be captioned "Objections to
11
1
Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394
2
(9th Cir. 1991)).
3
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 22, 2015
/s/ Gary S. Austin
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
12
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?