(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
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?