Harper v. California Prison Industry Authority et al

Filing 13

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending that All Claims and Defendants be Dismissed, Except for Plaintiff's Claims Against Defendant Blazo for Failure to Protect in Violation of the Eighth Amendment and for Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs in Violation of the Eighth Amendment 1 , 11 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 6/14/2018: 14-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

JASON HARPER,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY
AUTHORITY, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

17

19

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT ALL CLAIMS
AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED,
EXCEPT FOR PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
AGAINST DEFENDANT BLAZO FOR
FAILURE TO PROTECT IN VIOLATION
OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT AND
FOR DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO
SERIOUS MEDICAL NEEDS IN
VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH
AMENDMENT
(ECF NOS. 1 & 11)

16

18

Case No. 1:17-cv-01717-LJO-EPG (PC)

Jason Harper (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20

Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on December 20, 2017. (ECF No.

21

1). The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 11). The Court found that Plaintiff

22

“stated cognizable claims against defendant Blazo for failure to protect in violation of the

23

Eighth Amendment and for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the

24

Eighth Amendment.” (Id. at 7). The Court also found that Plaintiff “failed to state any other

25

cognizable claims.” (Id).

26

The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claims against

27

defendant Blazo for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment and for deliberate

28

indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, amending the
1

1

complaint, or standing on the complaint subject to the Court issuing findings and

2

recommendations to a district judge consistent with the screening order. (Id. at 8).

3

On June 8, 2018, Plaintiff notified the Court that he is willing to proceed only on the

4

claims against defendant Blazo for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment and

5

for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

6

(ECF No. 12).

7

Accordingly, for the reasons explained in the Court’s screening order that was entered

8

on March 2, 2018 (ECF No. 11), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he is willing

9

to proceed only on the claims against defendant Blazo for failure to protect in violation of the

10

Eighth Amendment and for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the

11

Eighth Amendment (ECF No. 12), it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and

12

defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Blazo for failure to

13

protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment and for deliberate indifference to serious medical

14

needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

15

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge

16

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

17

(14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file

18

written objections with the Court.

19

Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

20

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

21

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394

22

(9th Cir. 1991)).

The document should be captioned “Objections to

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 14, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2