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)

Download PDF
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?