Owens v. Defazio et al
Filing
75
ORDER ADOPTING 49 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 03/19/18 ORDERING that Defendants' 37 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: GRANTED as to following claims: a) claim alleging defendants Byers and Rashev denied plaintiff food; b) conspiracy claim against defendant Staggs-Boatright; c) claim that defendant Okoroike denied plaintiff medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment; d) claim alleging ver bal harassment by defendant Mercado;e) due process claim against defendant Couch; f) claim that defendant Eldridge violated due process by upholding alleged misconduct by defendant Couch; and DENIED as to the following claims: a) claim alleging d efendant Rashev used excessive force; b) failure to intervene claims against defendants Guffee and Matthews; c) claim alleging defendant Mercado denied plaintiff an ice pack; d) conspiracy claim against defendant Okoroike; e) conspiracy claim agai nst defendant Martineck; f) claims alleging due process violations by defendants Schultz and Eldridge based on alleged denial of request to call witnesses and present documentary evidence, and insufficient evidence to support disciplinary conviction. Defendants Rashev, Guffee, Matthews, Mercado, Okoroike, Martinick, Schultz and Eldridge to file an answer within 30 days. (Benson, A.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
THEON OWENS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:16-cv-2750 JAM KJN P
v.
ORDER
JOSEPH DEGAZIO, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
18
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
19
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On October 3, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
20
21
which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to
22
the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff and defendants
23
have filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF Nos. 50, 65.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
24
25
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
26
court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
27
analysis.
28
/////
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. The findings and recommendations filed October 3, 2017, are adopted in full; and
3
2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 37) is granted as to the following claims: a)
4
claim alleging defendants Byers and Rashev denied plaintiff food; b) conspiracy claim against
5
defendant Staggs-Boatright; c) claim that defendant Okoroike denied plaintiff medical care in
6
violation of the Eighth Amendment; d) claim alleging verbal harassment by defendant Mercado;
7
e) due process claim against defendant Couch; f) claim that defendant Eldridge violated due
8
process by upholding alleged misconduct by defendant Couch;
9
3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 37) is denied as to the following claims: a)
10
claim alleging defendant Rashev used excessive force; b) failure to intervene claims against
11
defendants Guffee and Matthews; c) claim alleging defendant Mercado denied plaintiff an ice
12
pack; d) conspiracy claim against defendant Okoroike; e) conspiracy claim against defendant
13
Martineck; f) claims alleging due process violations by defendants Schultz and Eldridge based on
14
alleged denial of request to call witnesses and present documentary evidence, and insufficient
15
evidence to support disciplinary conviction;
16
4. Defendants Rashev, Guffee, Matthews, Mercado, Okoroike, Martinick, Schultz and
17
Eldridge are ordered to file an answer within thirty days of the date of this order.
18
DATED: March 19, 2018
19
/s/ John A. Mendez_______________________
20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?