Moore v. City of Shafter Corrections et al

Filing 16

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that for the reasons stated in the January 27, 2017 Screening Order and based on the above sequence of events, Plaintiff should be allowed to proceed solely on her claim under the Eighth Amendment, for delibe rate indifference to her serious medical needs, against Officer Ardon; all other claims and Defendants should be dismissed with prejudice re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint filed ; referred to Judge Drozd,signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 07/5/17. Objections to F&R (21-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8

Case No. 1:16-cv-00145-DAD-SKO (PC)
CHRISTY V. MOORE,

9
10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.
BEARD, et al.,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT
PLAINTIFF PROCEED ONLY ON EIGHTH
AMENDMENT CLAIM AGAINST OFFICER
ARDON AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS
AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED
(Doc. 1, 11, 12, 13)

Defendants.

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

FINDINGS
Plaintiff, Christy V. Moore, is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 27, 2017, an order issued for
Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint, or a statement of willingness to proceed only on her
claim under the Eighth Amendment against Officer Ardon (“the Screening Order”). (Doc. 11.)
Plaintiff was to file her response within twenty-one days. (Id.)
On March 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response indicating that prison personnel did not
deliver the Screening Order to her until March 7, 2017. (Doc. 12.) Although Plaintiff felt she
could correct the defects in her claims against the City of Shafter and the CDCR, she felt she had
no choice but to proceed only on her Eighth Amendment claim against Officer Ardon since the
deadline for her to respond to the Screening Order had lapsed. (Id.) Plaintiff’s notice was
construed as a request for an extension of time and she was granted up to June 1, 2017, to file an
amended complaint or a statement that she did not wish to do so. (Doc. 13.) That order indicated
1

1

that Plaintiff’s failure to comply would result in recommendation that this action proceed only on

2

her claim under the Eighth Amendment against Officer Ardon as it was found cognizable in the

3

Screening Order. (Id.)

4

More than one month since the June 1, 2017 deadline has now passed and Plaintiff has not

5

filed an amended complaint, or responded to the order granting her the extension of time in any

6

way.1 Thus, this action should proceed only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against

7

Officer Ardon as found cognizable in the Screening Order.

8

RECOMMENDATION

9

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that, for the reasons stated in the

10

January 27, 2017 Screening Order and based on the above sequence of events, Plaintiff should be

11

allowed to proceed solely on her claim under the Eighth Amendment, for deliberate indifference

12

to her serious medical needs, against Officer Ardon; all other claims and defendants should be

13

dismissed with prejudice.

14

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

15

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

16

twenty-one (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff

17

may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to

18

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

19

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

20

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391,

21

1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

25

July 5, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28

1

Although Plaintiff has subsequently twice filed a notice of change of address, she has not filed a request for an
extension of time to file an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the Court’s April 5, 2017 order. (See
Docs. 14, 15.)

2

.