Ronald Young v. Sisodia et al

Filing 23

ORDER Adopting 20 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER Denying Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint; ORDER For this Action to Proceed Only Against Defendant C. Sisodia for Deliberate Indifference to a Serious Medical Need in Violation of the Eighth Amendment, and Dismissing All Other Claims and Defendants, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/8/16. J. Kim (Medical Doctor at CSP-Corcoran) Terminated. Case Referred Back to Magistrate Judge. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RONALD YOUNG,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
C. SISODIA AND J. KIM,
Defendants.

15

1:15-cv-00640-LJO-EPG (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF NO. 20)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
(ECF NO. 22)
ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO
PROCEED ONLY AGAINST
DEFENDANT C. SISODIA FOR
DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO A
SERIOUS MEDICAL NEED IN
VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH
AMENDMENT, AND DISMISSING ALL
OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

16
17
18
19
20

Ronald Young (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

21

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on

22

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, which was filed on October 24, 2016. (ECF No. 19).

23

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

24

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

25

On November 8, 2016, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and

26

recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only against defendant Sisodia for

27

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that

28
1

1

all other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action. (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff was

2

provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within twenty

3

days. Plaintiff objected to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 21), and filed a

4

“Motion for Leave to File an [sic] Supplemental Amended Second Complaint” (“Motion for

5

Leave to Amend”), which contained a copy of the “supplemental amendment” (ECF No. 22).

6

The Court construes the Motion for Leave to Amend as a motion for leave to amend the

7

complaint.

8

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

9

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

10

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

11

analysis.

12

The objection lays out facts that are allegedly relevant to the complaint, and asks the

13

Court to give Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint as laid out in the Motion

14

for Leave to Amend. The Court will deny this request, as well as the Motion for Leave to

15

Amend. On June 24, 2016, Magistrate Judge Grosjean screened Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF

16

No. 13). She provided Plaintiff with the applicable law, found that Plaintiff failed to state a

17

claim, and gave Plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint. (Id.). On July 21, 2016,

18

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14). On September 15, 2016, Magistrate

19

Judge Grosjean screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, provided Plaintiff with the

20

applicable law, and once again found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim. (ECF No. 15). While

21

Magistrate Judge Grosjean initially recommended dismissal of the case (Id.), she allowed

22

Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18). As mentioned above, when

23

screening the Second Amended Complaint, Magistrate Judge Grosjean found a claim against

24

only defendant Sisodia for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the

25

Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 20).

26

Although leave to amend is to be liberally granted, the Court will not grant leave to

27

amend here. Plaintiff was twice provided with the applicable law and given leave to amend,

28

and the Court does not believe that allowing a third amended complaint will be fruitful.
2

1

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

2

1.

3
4

The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on
November 8, 2016, are ADOPTED in full;

2.

This action now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, filed on

5

October 24, 2016, against defendant Sisodia for deliberate indifference to

6

serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

7

3.

All remaining claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action;

8

4.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to reflect the dismissal of defendant J. Kim on the

9
10

Court’s docket; and
5.

This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

December 8, 2016

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3