Sorrells v. United States Marshals Service et al

Filing 68

ORDER Adopting 66 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/24/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHANNON SORRELLS,

12

No. 1:16-cv-00081-DAD-SAB

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

HORTON, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. Nos. 58, 66, 67)

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Shannon Sorrells is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17
18

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

19

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On November 30, 2017, defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. No. 58.)

20
21

On May 2, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

22

recommending that defendants’ motion be denied. (Doc No. 66.) The findings and

23

recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto

24

were to be filed within thirty days after service. (Id.) Defendants filed objections that same day.

25

(Doc. No. 67.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a

26
27

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including defendants’

28

/////
1

1

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

2

by proper analysis.

3

In their objections, defendants contend that the findings and recommendations erroneously

4

assumed allegations that were not contained in the complaint. See Litmon v. Harris, 768 F.3d

5

1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[A] liberal interpretation of a pro se civil rights complaint may not

6

supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.”) (quoting Pena v. Gardner,

7

976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992)). Specifically, defendants argue that plaintiff’s complaint

8

contains no allegations suggesting that defendants should have been aware of the risk that

9

plaintiff would suffer a seizure as a result of his failing to receive anti-seizure medication from

10

July 17, 2015 until July 21, 2015. As noted in the findings and recommendations, defendants

11

Horton and Mehlhoff responded to plaintiff’s administrative grievance regarding the alleged

12

failure to properly treat his seizures. (Doc. No. 66 at 5.) The assigned magistrate judge inferred,

13

based upon this response, that both defendants were therefore responsible for plaintiff’s medical

14

treatment and should have been on notice of any potential harm resulting from a failure to provide

15

plaintiff with his medication. (Id. at 6) (“Plaintiff’s allegations demonstrate that both Horton and

16

Mehlhoff were responsible in some respect for the medical treatment and review of such

17

treatment in July 2015.”). The undersigned finds no error with this analysis.

18

Accordingly,

19

1.

20

The findings and recommendations issued May 2, 2018 (Doc. No. 66) are adopted
in full;

21

2.

Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 58) is denied; and

22

3.

Defendants are directed to file a dispositive motion within ninety (90) days from

23
24
25

the date of service of this order. (See Doc. No. 60.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 24, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2