(PC) Carroll v. Warden

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING 15 Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/9/2022. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ABONILICO CARROLL,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

WARDEN, et al.,,

15

No. 1:21-cv-01605-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
Defendants.

(Doc. No. 15)

16
17

Plaintiff Abonilico Carroll is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

18

this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

19

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On November 30, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and

21

found that plaintiff had failed to state any cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 10.) In that screening

22

order, the court provided plaintiff with guidance regarding the pleading and legal standards

23

applicable to the claims that he was attempting to assert in his complaint. (Id. at 3–8.) Plaintiff

24

was granted leave to file a first amended complaint within thirty (30) days from service of that

25

screening order, or alternatively, if plaintiff did not wish to further amend his complaint, he was

26

directed to file a notice of his intent to stand on his complaint. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff was warned

27

that if he elected to stand on his complaint, the magistrate judge would issue findings and

28

recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed, without leave to amend,
1

1

due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim. (Id.) On January 3, 2022, plaintiff filed a

2

first amended complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. No. 11.)
On March 30, 2022, the magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s FAC and found that plaintiff

3
4

had stated cognizable Eight Amendment claims against defendant Doe 1, but that plaintiff had

5

failed to state any other cognizable claims against defendant Doe 1 or the other defendants named

6

in his FAC: Warden, Doe 2, and Doe 3. (Doc. No. 15.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge issued

7

findings and recommendations recommending that this case proceed on plaintiff’s Eighth

8

Amendment conditions of confinement claim against defendant Doe 1 and plaintiff’s Eighth

9

Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs against defendant Doe

10

1, but that all other claims and defendants be dismissed. (Id. at 9.) The pending findings and

11

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were

12

to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id. at 10.) No objections have been filed,

13

and the time in which to do so has now passed.

14

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

15

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the

16

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

17

Accordingly,

18

1.

19

The findings and recommendations issued on March 30, 2022 (Doc. No. 15) are
adopted in full;

20

2.

This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of

21

confinement claim and claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical

22

needs against defendant Doe 1;

23

3.

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

All other claims and named defendants are dismissed;

/////
2

1

4.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that defendants

2

Warden, Doe 2, and Doe 3 have been terminated as named defendants in this

3

action; and

4

5.

5
6
7
8

This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further
proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 9, 2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3