Williams v. Alfaro

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION That This Action Proceed Only on Cognizable Claims and That All Other Claims and Defendants be Dismissed 14 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/2/2018. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS, 11 12 13 CASE No. 1: 17-cv-01310-AWI-MJS (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED ONLY ON COGNIZABLE CLAIMS AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED v. S. ALFARO, et al., 14 Defendants. (ECF NO. 14) 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 17 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 18 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the 19 United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 20 On January 22, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and a 21 recommendation that this action proceed on the following cognizable claims: 1) First 22 Amendment retaliation claims for damages against Defendants Villarrial, Dollarhide, 23 Longoria, and Noland in their individual capacities; 2) Eighth Amendment excessive 24 force claims for damages against Defendants Campbell, Morelock, Longoria, Noland, 25 and Burns in their individual capacities; 3) Eighth Amendment medical claims for 26 damages against Defendants Dollarhide, Noland, and Burns in their individual 27 capacities; 4) Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claims for damages against 28 1 Defendants Longoria, Noland, and Alvarado in their individual capacities; and 5) ADA 2 claims against Defendants Alfaro and Sexton in their official capacities. (ECF No. 14.) 3 The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff’s remaining claims were not cognizable as 4 pled and he recommended that they be dismissed. (Id.) Plaintiff previously had been 5 afforded an opportunity to amend to cure the defects identified by the Magistrate Judge 6 (ECF No. 11), but declined to do so (ECF Nos. 12, 13). 7 The findings and recommendation were served on Plaintiff with notice that any 8 objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 14.) On February 7, 9 2018, Plaintiff filed objections, objecting to the dismissal of his claims against Defendant 10 Gallagher. (ECF No. 16.) 11 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has 12 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 13 Court finds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and by 14 proper analysis. For the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge, the facts alleged by 15 Plaintiff are insufficient, standing alone, to suggest deliberate indifference on the part of 16 Defendant Gallagher. Plaintiff’s objections do not add any facts to suggest this defect 17 could be cured through amendment. 18 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. 20 21 22 23 The Court adopts the January 22, 2018 findings and recommendation (ECF No. 14) in full; 2. This action proceeds on the following cognizable claims as stated in the Court’s screening order (ECF No. 11): a. First Amendment claims for damages against Defendants 24 Villarrial, Dollarhide, Longoria, and Noland in their individual 25 capacities; 26 b. Eighth Amendment excessive force claims for damages against 27 Defendants Campbell, Morelock, Longoria, Noland, and 28 Burns in their individual capacities; 2 1 c. Eighth Amendment medical claims for damages against 2 Defendants Dollarhide, Noland, and Burns in their individual 3 capacities; 4 d. Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claims for damages 5 against Defendants Longoria, Noland, and Alvarado in their 6 individual capacities; and 7 e. ADA claims against Defendants Alfaro and Sexton in their official 8 9 10 capacities; 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 2, 2018 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 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?