(PC) Garcia v. Baniga et al
Filing
13
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that this Action Proceed Only Against Defendant Dr. Rodriguez for Inadequate Medical Care under the Eighth Amendment, and that all other Claims and Defendants be Dismissed signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/10/2019. Referred to Judge Ishii. referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R Due within Fourteen Days. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOSE GARCIA,
12
13
14
15
16
17
Plaintiff,
v.
U. BANIGA, M.D., et al.,
Defendants.
1:19-cv-01258-AWI-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION
PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT
DR. RODRIGUEZ FOR INADEQUATE
MEDICAL CARE UNDER THE EIGHTH
AMENDMENT, AND THAT ALL OTHER
CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE
DISMISSED
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS
18
19
20
21
22
23
Jose Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this
24
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed the
25
Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint names as defendants Plaintiff
26
names as defendants Dr. U. Baniga, Dr. Rodriguez, California Correctional Health Care Services
27
(CCHCS), and Does #1-5 (Medical Provider Policy Makers) (collectively, “Defendants”), and
28
brings claims for inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment, for creating or
1
1
implementing a flawed policy, for retaliation, and for improperly handling Plaintiff’s prison
2
appeals.
3
The court screened the Complaint and found that Plaintiff states a cognizable claim
4
against defendant Dr. Rodriguez for failure to provide adequate medical care under the Eighth
5
Amendment, but no other claims against any of the Defendants. (ECF No. 8.) On September 23,
6
2019, the court issued a screening order requiring Plaintiff to either (1) file an Amended
7
Complaint, or (2) notify the court that he is willing to proceed only with the medical claim against
8
defendant Dr. Rodriguez found cognizable by the court. (Id.)
9
10
On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to proceed only with the
medical claim found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 12.)
11
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
12
1.
13
This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Dr. Rodriguez for
failure to provide adequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment;
14
2.
All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action;
15
3.
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants for creating or implementing a flawed
16
policy, for retaliation, and for improperly handling Plaintiff’s prison appeals be
17
dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon
18
which relief may be granted;
19
4.
Defendants Dr. U. Baniga, California Correctional Health Care Services
20
(CCHCS), and Does #1-5 (Medical Provider Policy Makers) be dismissed from
21
this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them upon which
22
relief may be granted; and
23
24
5.
This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings,
including initiation of service of process.
25
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
26
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within
27
fourteen (14) days after the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff
28
may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to
2
1
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
2
objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.
3
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
4
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 10, 2019
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?