Windham v. California Medical Facility, et al

Filing 19

ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/27/2016 ORDERING defendants Sabin and Yun shall file a responsive pleading concerning plaintiff's remaining Eighth Amendment and negligence claims appear ing in plaintiff's 15 amended complaint within 14 days, or file a document indicating their intent to stand on the answer filed 10/5/2015 within fourteen days. IT IS RECOMMENDED that defendant Duffy be dismissed. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SAMUEL WINDHAM, JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:15-1058 MCE CKD P

v.

ORDER AND

CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY, et
al.,

16

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On May 13, 2015, this action was removed

18
19

to this court from the Superior Court of Solano County by defendants Sabin and Yun. On

20

August 26, 2015, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff has now

21

filed an amended complaint.
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners where, as here, the

22
23

prisoner seeks relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental

24

entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the

25

prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon

26

which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from

27

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

28

/////
1

1

The court has conducted the required screening and finds that plaintiff’s amended

2

complaint states actionable claims for violations of the Eighth Amendment and for negligence in

3

violation of California law against defendants Sabin and Yun. Plaintiff fails to state a claim

4

against defendant Warden Duffy as plaintiff fails to show that he did anything which proximately

5

caused any of the injuries alleged.

6

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants Sabin and Yun

7

file a responsive pleading concerning plaintiff’s remaining Eighth Amendment and negligence

8

claims appearing in plaintiff’s amended complaint within fourteen days, or file a document

9

indicating their intent to stand on the answer filed October 5, 2015 within fourteen days.

10

IT IS HEREY RECOMMENDED that defendant Duffy be dismissed.

11

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

12

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

13

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

14

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

15

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

16

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

17

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

18

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

19

Dated: January 27, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25

1
wind1058.1

26
27
28
2