Jorgenson v. Moore et al
Filing
95
ORDER ADOPTING 91 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/1/19. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
PAUL JORGENSON,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00817-LJO-EPG (PC)
11
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
12
13
14
v.
(ECF Nos. 29, 34, & 91)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
Paul Jorgenson (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
17
pauperis in this action. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to
18
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second
19
Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which was filed on July 12, 2018. (ECF No. 19). This case is
20
proceeding “on Plaintiff’s FTCA claim against the United States, his Eighth Amendment
21
Bivens claim against the four unknown correctional officers, and his state tort claims for
22
medical negligence and battery against Defendants Haak, Randhawa, and Emanuel Medical
23
Center.” (ECF No. 21, p. 2).
24
On December 17, 2018, defendant Emanuel Medical Center (“EMC”) and defendant
25
Jaspal Randhawa (“Randhawa”) filed a partial motion to dismiss and a motion to strike
26
Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. (ECF Nos. 29, 30, 31, 34, & 35). As a motion to strike
27
a claim for punitive damages on the ground that punitive damages are precluded as a matter of
28
1
1
law is improper, the magistrate judge construed the motion to strike as a motion to dismiss.
2
(ECF No. 91, pgs. 1-2, n.1).
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On September 12, 2019, the magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations,
recommending that:
1. Defendant EMC and Randhawa’s motions to dismiss be
granted in part and denied in part;
2. Plaintiff’s battery claim against defendant Randhawa be
dismissed, with prejudice;
3. Defendant EMC’s request to dismiss Plaintiff’s battery claim
against defendant EMC be denied;
4. Defendant EMC and Randhawa’s request to dismiss
Plaintiff’s claim for negligent failure to obtain informed
consent be denied as moot; and
5. Defendant EMC and Randhawa’s request to dismiss
Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages be denied.
(ECF No. 91, pgs. 11-12) (footnote omitted).
The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and
recommendations. Neither defendant EMC nor defendant Randhawa objected to the findings
and recommendations. On September 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed his objections. (ECF No. 94).
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper
analysis.
The majority of Plaintiff’s objections are not relevant to the motions to dismiss and the
findings and recommendations that are currently before the Court.1 The only claim that the
magistrate judge recommended be dismissed is the battery claim against defendant Randhawa,
and Plaintiff does not specifically address this claim in his objections. Plaintiff does complain
that discovery has not yet been conducted, but defendant Randhawa filed a motion to dismiss,
not a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff did not need to submit evidence. Instead, the
26
27
1
28
To the extent Plaintiff is asking for appointment of counsel, or any other relief, Plaintiff should file
separate motions regarding those requests.
2
1
Court relies on the allegations in Plaintiff’s SAC, which fail to state a battery claim against
2
defendant Randhawa.
3
Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:
4
1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on September 12,
5
2019, are ADOPTED in full;
6
2. Defendants EMC and Randhawa’s motions to dismiss is granted in part and denied
7
in part (the Court will address the portion of the motion to dismiss that was
8
converted to a motion for summary judgment in a separate order);
9
10
3. Plaintiff’s battery claim against defendant Randhawa is dismissed, with prejudice;
4. Defendant EMC’s request to dismiss Plaintiff’s battery claim against defendant
11
12
EMC is denied;
5. Defendants EMC and Randhawa’s request to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for negligent
13
14
failure to obtain informed consent is denied as moot; and
6. Defendants EMC and Randhawa’s request to dismiss Plaintiff’s request for punitive
15
damages is denied.
16
17
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
October 1, 2019
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?