Johnson v. Scalia et al
Filing
17
ORDER adopting 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, dismissing certain claims with leave to amended signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/5/2018. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CARL JOHNSON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
J. SCALIA, et al.,
15
16
No. 1: 18-cv-00061-DAD-JDP
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND
Defendants.
(Doc. No. 15)
17
18
Plaintiff Carl Johnson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
19
pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred
20
to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21
On July 11, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,
22
recommending that plaintiff be allowed to proceed on claims under the Eighth Amendment
23
against defendants J. Scalia, A. Fritz, B. Hackworth, A. Aranda, J. Campos, and two Doe
24
defendants for providing him unsanitary conditions of confinement, and against two Doe
25
defendants for delaying medical treatment for plaintiff’s serious medical needs. (Doc. No. 15.)
26
The magistrate judge recommended that the remainder of plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with
27
leave to amend. (Id. at 1, 8-9, 10.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff
28
and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after
1
1
service. (Id. at 10.) On July 27, 2018, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and
2
recommendations. (Doc. No. 16.)
3
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
4
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings
5
and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
6
In his objections, plaintiff argues that the findings and recommendations fail to recognize
7
his claims against defendants Scalia, Fritz, Hackworth, and two Doe defendants for denial of
8
medical treatment. (Doc. No. 16 at 2.) Plaintiff relies on his allegations in paragraphs 1-39 of the
9
complaint and argues that defendants knew that they were exposing him to a substantial risk of
10
serious harm when they served his meals in unsanitary conditions. (Id.) As discussed in the
11
findings and recommendations, plaintiff has sufficiently pled Eighth Amendment conditions of
12
confinement claims against defendants Scalia, Fritz, Hackworth, and two Doe defendants for
13
subjecting him to unsanitary conditions that allegedly resulted in plaintiff’s severe abdominal
14
pain. (See Doc. No. 15 at 7.) To the extent that plaintiff intends to state a deliberate indifference
15
claim for denial of medical treatment against the prison staff members who distributed his meals,
16
he may only do so if he is able to allege facts in an amended complaint supporting a claim that
17
those defendants knew of his severe abdominal pain but did nothing to assist him in obtaining
18
medical treatment for that condition. (See id. at 8.)
19
Accordingly,
20
1.
21
22
The findings and recommendations issued on July 11, 2018 (Doc. No. 15) are
adopted in full;
2.
23
This action shall proceed on two sets of plaintiff’s claims:
a.
Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth
24
Amendment claim against defendants J. Scalia, A. Fritz, B. Hackworth, A.
25
Aranda, J. Campos, and two Doe defendants;
26
b.
27
28
Plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in
violation of the Eighth Amendment against the two Doe defendants;
3.
All other claims are dismissed with leave to amend; and
2
1
4.
2
3
4
This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further
proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 5, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
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?