Rodriguez v. Brown, et al.

Filing 13

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That This Action Proceed Only Against Defendant Sherman on Plaintiff's Conditions of Confinement Claim and Related State Claims, and That All Other Claims and Defendants be Dismissed, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 4/5/16. Objections to F&R Due Within Twenty Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JOSEPH D. RODRIGUEZ,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
vs.
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

1:15-cv-01754-LJO-EPG-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION
PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT
SHERMAN ON PLAINTIFF=S CONDITIONS
OF CONFINEMENT CLAIM AND RELATED
STATE CLAIMS, AND THAT ALL OTHER
CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE
DISMISSED
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 20 DAYS

17

Joseph D. Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The case now proceeds on the

19

original Complaint filed by Plaintiff on November 19, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint

20

names as defendants Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Governor of California); Kelly Harrington

21

(Director of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation); and Stuart Sherman

22

(Warden of the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF)), and alleges claims for

23

adverse conditions of confinement under the Eighth Amendment and related state claims.

24

The Court screened Plaintiff=s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and found that

25

it states a cognizable claim under § 1983 against Stuart Sherman. (ECF No. 6.) On December

26

8, 2015, Plaintiff was granted leave to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court that

27

he is willing to proceed only on the Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim

28

against defendant Stuart Sherman found cognizable by the Court and related state claims. (Id.)
1

1

On February 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice informing the Court that he is willing to proceed

2

only on the cognizable claim against defendant Stuart Sherman and related state claims. (ECF

3

No. 11.)

4

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

5

1.

This action proceed only against defendant Stuart Sherman, on Plaintiff’s claim

6

for adverse conditions of confinement under the Eighth Amendment, and related

7

state claims;

8

2.

All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; and

9

3.

Defendants Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Kelly Harrington be dismissed from this
action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them;

10
11

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

12

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within

13

twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may

14

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to

15

Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

16

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.

17

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394

18

(9th Cir. 1991)).

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 5, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22

23
24
25
26
27
28
2