(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)

Download PDF
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

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?