Larry v. Goodwin, et al.
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that this Action Proceed Only Against Defendants Goodwin and Reis, on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Conditions of Confinement Claims, and that all Other Claims and Defendants be Dismissed, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/31/17. Objections, if any, Due in 14 Days. Referred to Judge Drozd. (Gonzalez, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JERALD MORRIS LARRY,
S. GOODWIN, et al.,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION
PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS
GOODWIN AND REIS, ON PLAINTIFF=S
EIGHTH AMENDMENT CONDITIONS OF
CONFINEMENT CLAIMS, AND THAT ALL
OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS
Jerald Morris Larry (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 8, 2017,
Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action.
defendants S. Goodwin (Supervisor Cook), Reis (Supervisor Cook I), and John Does #1 and #2
(Maintenance Workers). (Id.)
(ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff named as
The court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and found that
it states cognizable Eighth Amendment claims for adverse conditions of confinement under §
1983 against defendants Reis and Goodwin. (ECF No. 11.) On October 10, 2017, Plaintiff was
granted leave to either file an amended complaint or notify the court that he is willing to
proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the court. (Id.) On October 27, 2017, Plaintiff
filed a notice informing the court that he does not wish to file an amended complaint and would
like to proceed only on the cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Reis and
Goodwin. (ECF No. 12.)
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
This action proceed only against defendants S. Goodwin (Supervisor Cook) and
Reis (Supervisor Cook I), on Plaintiff’s claims for adverse conditions of
confinement under the Eighth Amendment;
All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; and
Defendants John Does #1 and #2 (Maintenance Workers) be dismissed from this
action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be
granted against them.
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
fourteen (14) days after the date of service of 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 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 31, 2017
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?