Quezada v. Sherman et al
Filing
36
ORDER ADOPTING 30 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/28/2020. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ALVARO QUEZADA,
12
13
14
15
No. 1:18-cv-00797-DAD-JLT (PC)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
S. SHERMAN, et al.,
(Doc. No. 30)
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff Alvaro Quezada is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
18
this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States
19
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
On July 20, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,
21
finding that plaintiff’s third amended complaint (“TAC”) states cognizable claims of deliberate
22
indifference against defendants Akabike, Ceja, and Harris. (Doc. No. 30.) The magistrate judge
23
further recommended that defendant Sherman and all of plaintiffs’ remaining claims be dismissed
24
for failure to state a cognizable claim and without further leave to amend in light of plaintiff’s
25
unsuccessful attempts to state cognizable claims in that regard. (Id. at 1.) The findings and
26
recommendations were served on plaintiff and provided him twenty-one (21) days to file
27
objections. (Id. at 14.) On September 28, 2020, plaintiff untimely filed objections to the findings
28
and recommendations. (Doc. No. 33.)
1
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
2
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including plaintiff’s objections,
3
the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper
4
analysis.
5
Out of an abundance of caution, the undersigned has reviewed plaintiff’s untimely
6
objections to the findings and recommendations. Nevertheless, the undersigned is not persuaded
7
by those objections. To the extent that plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s analysis of his
8
deliberate indifference claims, those objections are misplaced. (See Doc. No. 33 at 1–5.) The
9
undersigned notes that each of those objections are unnecessary mischaracterizations of the
10
magistrate judge’s analysis, particularly because the magistrate judge found that plaintiff has
11
stated cognizable deliberate indifference claims. (See Doc. No. 30 at 5–9.) Regarding the
12
recommended dismissal of his Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claims, plaintiff argues
13
that he did not intend to sue defendants in their individual capacities. (Doc. No. 33 at 5.)1
14
Plaintiff also argues that his mistake in that regard does not mean that defendant Akabike did not
15
commit ADA violations. This argument is unavailing. The magistrate judge noted, and the
16
undersigned agrees, that plaintiff “does not allege facts that show he was excluded from
17
participation in, or denied the benefits of, any service or programs offered by the prison because
18
of his disability, or that he was subjected to any type of discrimination by reason of his
19
disability.” (See Doc. No. 30 at 10.)
20
Accordingly,
21
1.
22
The findings and recommendations issued on July 20, 2020 (Doc. No. 30) are
adopted in full;
23
24
25
26
27
28
In his objections plaintiff actually states that “plaintiff failed to list the [defendants] in their
individual capacities.” (Doc. No. 33 at 5.) However, the findings and recommendations noted
that plaintiff’s claim is not cognizable in part because he does sue defendants in their individual
capacities. (See Doc. No. 30 at 10); Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145, 1148 (9th Cir. 2002)
(holding that plaintiff could “not pursue a section 1983 claim against [defendant] in her individual
capacity for her alleged violation of either the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act”). In light of this
finding, and out of an abundance of caution, the undersigned construes the objection as conveying
that plaintiff did not intend to sue defendants in their individual capacities.
2
1
1
2.
The claims in plaintiff’s third amended complaint—except for plaintiff’s deliberate
2
indifference claims against defendants Akabike, Ceja, and Harris—are dismissed
3
without further leave to amend;
4
3.
Defendant Sherman is dismissed from this action;
5
4.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to change the title of this case to “Quezada v.
6
7
8
9
Akabike, et al.” in light of defendant Sherman’s dismissal; and
5.
This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
December 28, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?