(PC) Wilkins v. Gipson et al
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 5/9/22 ADOPTING in full 62 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 54 defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff's 66 Motion to Strike defendants' objections is DENIED. Defendants' 64 objection to the Findings and Recommendations based on standing is OVERRULED without prejudice to renewal in a subsequent motion. (Kastilahn, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:19-cv-1469 JAM CKD P
CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On April 12, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which
were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. The parties have filed their
objections to the findings and recommendations and plaintiff has filed a separate motion to strike
defendants’ objections. ECF Nos. 63-64, 66.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
analysis. Defendants’ objection challenging plaintiff’s standing to sue based on his lack of an
actual injury was not presented in the motion for judgment on the pleadings. While defendants
cited case law addressing the standing issue, it was raised in the context of plaintiff’s failure to
properly plead an Eighth Amendment violation. See ECF No. 54-1 at 14-15. Therefore, the
magistrate judge addressed all of defendants’ arguments raised in their motion for judgment on
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed April 12, 2022, are adopted in full.
2. Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 54) is granted in part and
denied in part. To the extent that the court’s screening order of December 17, 2020
references Monell, this is stricken and this case proceeds on the allegations in the second
amended complaint that defendants Diaz and Gipson were deliberately indifferent to
plaintiff’s rights to health and safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. With respect
to defendants’ qualified immunity argument, the motion is denied without prejudice to
renewal at a later stage of the proceedings.
3. Plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ objections (ECF No. 66) is denied.
4. Defendants’ objection to the Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 64) based on
standing is overruled without prejudice to renewal in a subsequent motion.
DATED: May 9, 2022
/s/ John A. Mendez
THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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?