(PC) Ybarra v. Anderson et al, No. 1:2009cv01098 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS That Certain Defendants be Dismissed signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 3/8/2010. It is HEREBY RECOMMENDED That This action proceed on Plaintiffs complaint, filed June 22, 2009, against Defendant Anderson for violation of the Eighth Amendment; and Defendants Vantloff, Velasco, Rasmussen and Gerber be dismissed based on Plaintiffs failure to state any claims against her. Referred to Judge Oliver W. Wanger. Objections to F&R due by 4/12/2010. (Bradley, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Ybarra v. Anderson et al Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 LAURA YBARRA, 10 11 12 13 1:09-cv-01098 OWW YNP SMS (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CERTAIN DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED v. C/O ANDERSON, et al., Defendants. 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff is a Madera County Jail inmate prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 17 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding against defendants 18 employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitatino (CDCR) at Valley State 19 Prison for Women (VSPW). Plaintiff filed this action on June 22, 2009. On February 23, 2010, the 20 court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claims against Defendant 21 Anderson for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but does not state any claims 22 against Defendants Vantloff, Velasco, Rasmussen and Gerber. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either 23 file an amended complaint or notify the Court of her willingness to proceed only on the claims found 24 to be cognizable. On February 23,2010, Plaintiff notified the Court that she does not wish to amend 25 and is willing to proceed on the claims found cognizable. Based on Plaintiff’s notice, this Findings 26 and Recommendations now issues. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) 27 (prisoner must be given notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for 28 failure to state a claim). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. 3 This action proceed on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed June 22, 2009, against Defendant Anderson for violation of the Eighth Amendment; 4 2. 5 Defendants Vantloff, Velasco, Rasmussen and Gerber be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against her. 6 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 7 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) 8 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written 9 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 10 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 11 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 12 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: icido3 March 8, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
