Hutchins, Jr. v. Lockyer, et al.
Filing
39
ORDER ADOPTING 36 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Certain Claims, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/8/17. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CLIFTON HUTCHINS, JR.,
12
13
14
15
No. 1:15-cv-01537-DAD-MJS
Plaintiff,
v.
BILL LOCKYER, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS
(Doc. No. 36)
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
18
action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendant Johal has appeared in this
19
action, while defendants Klang, Yousseff, Nurse Does 1–2, and Does 3–6 have not.
20
On December 19, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and
21
dismissed all claims against defendants Klang, Yousseff, Nurse Does 1–2, and Does 3–6 in
22
plaintiff’s second amended complaint with prejudice. (Doc. No 26.) Plaintiff voluntarily
23
declined to pursue his claims against defendants Lockyer, Lewis, Ramos, Sheheta, Patel,
24
Katavich, and Does 7–10 in the second amended complaint after his original complaint and first
25
amended complaint were dismissed with leave to amend. (Doc. Nos. 14, 20.)
26
The case proceeded on two of plaintiff’s claims against defendant Johal. (Doc. Nos. 21,
27
26.) Defendant Johal filed a motion to dismiss on March 10, 2017. (Doc. No. 30.) On August
28
22, 2017, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that
1
1
defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied. (Doc. No. 34.) Those findings and recommendations
2
were adopted by the undersigned. (Doc. No. 37.)
3
On November 22, 2017, the magistrate judge reinstated plaintiff’s previously dismissed
4
claims, recognizing that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir.
5
2017), had held that a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction to dismiss claims with prejudice
6
in screening prisoner complaints even if the plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge
7
jurisdiction, as plaintiff had here. (Doc. No. 36.) Concurrently, the magistrate judge issued
8
findings and recommendations recommending that the undersigned dismiss those reinstated
9
claims. (Id.) Plaintiff was given fourteen days to file his objections to those findings and
10
recommendations. Plaintiff did not file any objections, and the time in which to do so has now
11
passed.
12
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the
13
undersigned has conducted a de novo review of plaintiff’s case. The undersigned concludes the
14
findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
15
16
17
18
19
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 22, 2017 (Doc. No. 36) are
adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Klang, Yousseff, Nurse Does 1–2, and Does 3–6 are
dismissed;
20
3. Plaintiff’s first claim against defendant Johal for medical indifference is dismissed; and
21
4. This action proceeds solely on plaintiff’s second medical indifference claim and
22
retaliation claim against defendant Johal as alleged in the second amended complaint,
23
those claims having been found to be cognizable in the magistrate judge’s prior screening
24
orders (Doc. Nos. 20, 26).
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
December 8, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
2
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?