Harris v. Sexton, et al.

Filing 100

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/17/23 ADOPTING in full 90 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 66 plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint (see order for further details). D efendant's 87 motion to strike the amended complaint filed 12/27/21 is GRANTED. Defendant Sexton is DISMISSED from this action. This matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
Case 1:18-cv-00080-KJM-DB Document 100 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 EARNEST S. HARRIS, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 SEXTON, et al., 14 No. 1:18-cv-0080 KJM DB P ORDER Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 18 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On March 31, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 20 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 21 recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings 22 and recommendations. 23 On August 9, 2022, the court issued an order requiring counsel for defendants to file 24 within fourteen days a statement explaining what, if any, impact the settlement reached in the 25 complaint-in-intervention filed by plaintiff Christopher Lipsey in Coleman v. Newsom, Case No. 26 90-cv-0520 KJM DB P, has on this action. Aug. 9, 2022 Order, ECF No. 98. On August 22, 27 2022, defendants timely filed a response representing they do not believe the Lipsey settlement 28 impacts this action. ECF No. 99. 1 Case 1:18-cv-00080-KJM-DB Document 100 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, including 3 defendants’ August 2022 filing, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 4 by the record and by the proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 31, 2022, are adopted in full. 7 2. Plaintiff’s February 18, 2021 motion to amend the second amended complaint (“SAC”) 8 (ECF No. 66) is granted in part and denied in part as follows: 9 10 a. Plaintiff’s motion to supplement his SAC with an Eighth Amendment claim and a First Amendment claim against defendant Flores is granted; and 11 b. Plaintiff’s motion to supplement or amend the SAC is denied with respect to the 12 addition of claims that Guard One is being used inappropriately on non-Coleman class 13 members, that defendant Flores violated plaintiff’s rights under the PREA, and that CDCR 14 violated an order in Coleman v. Newsom by allowing psychiatric technicians, rather than 15 custody staff, to conduct the Guard One checks. 16 3. Defendant’s motion to strike (ECF No. 87) the amended complaint filed December 27, 17 2021 is granted. 18 4. Defendant Sexton is dismissed from this action. 19 5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 20 proceedings. 21 DATED: January 17, 2023. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?