Thornton v. Grissom et al

Filing 31

ORDER Vacating 29 Order to Show Cause; and RENEWED FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Non-Cognizable Claims with Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/27/17. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SIMON THORNTON,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-0498-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE; AND

v.
DONALD L. GRISSOM, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

RENEWED FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS NONCOGNIZABLE CLAIMS WITH
PREJUDICE
(ECF NOS. 9, 18)

17

FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On October 4, 2016, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) was
screened and found to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force claim
against Defendant Grissom and an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against
Defendant Cruz. (ECF No. 18.) However, the Court concluded that all other claims and
Defendants were subject to dismissal. Plaintiff was directed to file a notice of his
willingness to proceed on the pleading as screened or to file a Second Amended
Complaint.

1

Plaintiff’s position regarding the screening of his First Amended Complaint has

2

changed a number of times since the October 4, 2016, Screening Order. Initially, he

3

expressed his willingness to proceed on the pleading as screened. (ECF No. 20.)

4

Accordingly, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations on November 8,

5

2016, recommending that Plaintiff be permitted to proceed on the cognizable claims

6

asserted in the First Amended Complaint and that all other claims and Defendants be

7

dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 22.)

8

On November 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and

9

Recommendations and expressed his intent to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 24.)

10

In light of this filing, the undersigned vacated the Findings and Recommendations and

11

granted Plaintiff thirty days to file his amended pleading. (ECF No. 25.)

12

When the deadline for filing his amended pleading passed with no Second

13

Amended Complaint from Plaintiff, an Order to Show Cause issued on February 7, 2017,

14

directing Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to

15

comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 30.) In his response,

16

Plaintiff now wishes to proceed on the First Amended Complaint as originally screened

17

on October 4, 2016.1 Based on this representation, the Court will re-issue its Findings

18

and Recommendations.

19
20

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the February 7, 2017, Order to Show
Cause (ECF No. 29) is VACATED; and

21

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

22

1.

Plaintiff proceed on an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against

23

Defendant Grissom and an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim

24

against Defendant Cruz; and

25
1

26
27
28

Plaintiff’s response also includes objections to the Court’s February 7, 2017, order denying his motion for
reconsideration. (ECF No. 23.) That motion concerned his multiple requests for appointment of counsel
based on his claim that he suffers from a mental impairment preventing him from properly litigating this
action. Because Plaintiff submitted no evidentiary support for his claim of impairment, the Court denied his
motions without prejudice to their renewal. Plaintiff may therefore re-file a motion for appointment of
counsel if he is able to support his motion with adequate evidence.

2

1

2.

2

The findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

All other claims and Defendants be dismissed with prejudice.

3

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

4

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and recommendations, the

5

parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned

6

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” A party may

7

respond to another party’s objections by filing a response within fourteen (14) days after

8

being served with a copy of that party’s objections. The parties are advised that failure to

9

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

10

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

11

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 27, 2017

/s/

15

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3