Moore v. City of Shafter Corrections et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:16-cv-00145-DAD-SKO (PC)
CHRISTY V. MOORE,
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)
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
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
that Plaintiff’s failure to comply would result in recommendation that this action proceed only on
her claim under the Eighth Amendment against Officer Ardon as it was found cognizable in the
Screening Order. (Id.)
More than one month since the June 1, 2017 deadline has now passed and Plaintiff has not
filed an amended complaint, or responded to the order granting her the extension of time in any
way.1 Thus, this action should proceed only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against
Officer Ardon as found cognizable in the Screening Order.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED 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 deliberate indifference
to her serious medical needs, against Officer Ardon; all other claims and defendants should be
dismissed with prejudice.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within
twenty-one (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff
may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.
Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391,
1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 5, 2017
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.)
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?