Gaines v. Brown et al

Filing 29

ORDER Adopting 20 Findings and Recommendations Finding Cognizable Claims Against Defendants Mirelez and Hoehing and recommending Dismissal of all Other Claims and Defendants, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/6/18. Jackson, S. Kernon, King, S. Lwin, K. Miller, R. Mitchell, Ray, Suede, Zaragoza, T. Boswell and E. G. Brown terminated. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARY LEE GAINES,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

BROWN, et al,

15
16
17

Case No. 1:16-cv-01666-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FINDING
COGNIZABLE CLAIMS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS MIRELEZ AND HOEHING
AND RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF
ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

Defendants.
(ECF No. 20)
Plaintiff Mary Lee Gaines (“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. This matter was referred to a

19

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On November 9, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations finding

21

that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint stated cognizable claims for deliberate indifference to

22

medical needs against Defendant Mirelez for not giving Plaintiff her breathing treatment despite

23

Plaintiff’s need for the treatment on February 11, 2014, and against Defendant Hoehing for not

24

assisting Plaintiff when Defendant came to Plaintiff’s cell and Plaintiff was having an asthma

25

attack on February 11, 2014. (ECF No. 20.) The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s

26

claims against all other Defendants, and all other claims against Defendants Mirelez and Hoehing,

27

be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state properly joined and cognizable claims upon

28

which relief may be granted. (Id.) Those findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff
1

1

and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after

2

service. (Id.) Following three extensions of time, Plaintiff’s objections were timely filed on

3

March 5, 2018. (ECF No. 28.)

4

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

5

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the

6

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
As indicated, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff merely lists the

7
8

additional Eighth Amendment claims against the remaining defendants, which she alleges are

9

cognizable. As Plaintiff was repeatedly informed, she may not bring unrelated claims against

10

unrelated parties in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d

11

950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has

12

provided no argument that justifies the joinder in this action of all claims regarding different

13

breathing emergencies arising on different dates, spanning multiple years, involving different

14

defendants.

15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

16

1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 9, 2017, (ECF. No. 20), are

17

adopted in full;
2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for claims of

18
19

deliberate indifference to medical needs against Defendant Mirelez for not giving

20

Plaintiff her breathing treatment despite Plaintiff’s need for the treatment on February

21

11, 2014, and against Defendant Hoehing for not assisting Plaintiff when Defendant

22

came to Plaintiff’s cell and Plaintiff was having an asthma attack on February 11,

23

2014;

24

3. Plaintiff’s remaining claims against Defendants Mirelez and Hoehing, and all other

25

claims and defendants, are dismissed from this action, without prejudice, for the

26

failure to state properly joined and cognizable claims upon which relief may be

27

granted; and

28

///
2

1

4. This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with

2

this order.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

March 6, 2018

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3