Windham v. California Medical Facility, et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAMUEL WINDHAM, JR.,
No. 2:15-1058 MCE CKD P
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY, et
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On May 13, 2015, this action was removed
to this court from the Superior Court of Solano County by defendants Sabin and Yun. On
August 26, 2015, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff has now
filed an amended complaint.
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners where, as here, the
prisoner seeks relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental
entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).
The court has conducted the required screening and finds that plaintiff’s amended
complaint states actionable claims for violations of the Eighth Amendment and for negligence in
violation of California law against defendants Sabin and Yun. Plaintiff fails to state a claim
against defendant Warden Duffy as plaintiff fails to show that he did anything which proximately
caused any of the injuries alleged.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants Sabin and Yun
file a responsive pleading concerning plaintiff’s remaining Eighth Amendment and negligence
claims appearing in plaintiff’s amended complaint within fourteen days, or file a document
indicating their intent to stand on the answer filed October 5, 2015 within fourteen days.
IT IS HEREY RECOMMENDED that defendant Duffy be dismissed.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Dated: January 27, 2016
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?