Carreon v. Abdur-Rahman et al
Filing
30
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/27/18 ADOPTING the findings and recommendations filed 9/15/18 in full; GRANTING in part and DENYING in part Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19 ): Defendants' motion to dismiss Pla intiff's retaliation claims against Defendant Dr. Abdur-Rahman, based on medical treatment provided before 7/26/15, is DISMISSED with prejudice; and Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's retaliation claims against Defendant Dr. Abd ur-Rahman based on medical treatment provided or not provided after 7/26/15 is DISMISSED with leave to amend; in the alternative, Plaintiff may choose to proceed on his original complaint based solely on his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference c laims. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Eight Amendment deliberate indifference claims is DENIED without prejudice to renewal in a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of this Order. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within that time, the action will proceed on the original complaint for only the Eight Amendment deliberate indifference claims. (Becknal, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANTONIO CARREON,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:17-cv-1292-TLN-KJN
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
Dr. S. ABDUR-RAHMAN, et al.,
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.
20
On August 15, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
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. Defendants filed
23
objections to the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff filed no objections.
24
Defendants object to the magistrate judge’s decision not to consider documents not
25
appended to the complaint under the incorporation by reference doctrine, relying on In re Silicon
26
Graphics Inc. Securities Litigation, 183 F.3d 970, 986 (9th Cir. 1999), Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d
27
1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005), and other cases. (ECF No. 27 at 2–3.) However, none of the cases
28
cited by Defendants were brought by prisoners proceeding pro se, and none of the courts’
1
1
decisions were rendered in the context of an Eighth Amendment challenge alleging deliberate
2
indifference to the prisoner’s medical care.1
3
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
4
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
5
Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
6
analysis.
7
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
8
1. The findings and recommendations filed August 15, 2018 are ADOPTED in full.
9
2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
10
part:
11
a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against Defendant
12
Dr. Abdur-Rahman, based on medical treatment provided before July 26, 2015, is DISMISSED
13
with prejudice; and
14
b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against Defendant
15
Dr. Abdur-Rahman based on medical treatment provided or not provided after July 26, 2015 is
16
DISMISSED with leave to amend; in the alternative, Plaintiff may choose to proceed on his
17
original complaint based solely on his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims.
18
19
3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eight Amendment deliberate indifference
claims is DENIED without prejudice to renewal in a motion for summary judgment.
20
3. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of this Order. If
21
Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within that time, the action will proceed on the
22
original complaint for only the Eight Amendment deliberate indifference claims.
23
24
Dated: September 27, 2018
25
26
27
28
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
In addition, although Defendants filed a motion dismiss and not a motion for summary judgment, it is likely
Plaintiff would be entitled to contemporaneous and fair notice of how he would have to rebut information set forth in
those documents. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).
1
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?