Vance Edward Johnson v. Barajas
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending That This Action Proceed Only Against Defendant Barajas on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Conditions of Confinement Claim, and That All Other Claims and Defendants Be Dismissed, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/21/16: 20-Day Objection Deadline. (Hellings, J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,
BARAJAS, et al.,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION
PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT
BARAJAS ON PLAINTIFF’S EIGHTH
AMENDMENT CONDITIONS OF
CONFINEMENT CLAIM, AND THAT ALL
OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 20 DAYS
Vance Edward Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The case now proceeds on
the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on August 21, 2015. (ECF No. 9.) The First
Amended Complaint names sole defendant Correctional Officer M. Barajas and alleges claims
for adverse conditions of confinement under the Eighth Amendment and equal protection
violations under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
' 1915A and found that it states a cognizable Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement
claim against defendant Barajas, but no other claims. (ECF No. 11.) On June 24, 2016,
Plaintiff was granted leave to either file a Second Amended Complaint or notify the Court that
he is willing to proceed only on the claim found cognizable by the Court. (Id.) On September
19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice informing the Court that he is willing to proceed only on the
cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Barajas. (ECF No. 18.)
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
This action proceed only against defendant Barajas, on Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment claim for adverse conditions of confinement;
All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; and
Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim be dismissed from this
action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within
twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may
file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to
Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.
Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394
(9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 21, 2016
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?