-JLT (PC) Green v. Ferguson, et al., No. 1:2010cv01768 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER adopting 11 , 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/20/2011. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-JLT (PC) Green v. Ferguson, et al. Doc. 14 1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 VENCIL C. GREEN, Case No. 1:10-cv-01768 AWI JLT (PC) 7 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 vs. 9 (Docs. 3, 11 & 13) DR. LARRY N. FERGUSON, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 / 12 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action 13 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 14 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 15 On August 8, 2011, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s original complaint and found that 16 it states cognizable claims only with respect to certain defendants. (Doc. 10.) The Magistrate Judge 17 therefore ordered Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint attempting to cure the deficiencies in his 18 incognizable claims or notify the Court that he wished to proceed only on his cognizable claims. (Id.) 19 In response, Plaintiff timely notified the Court on August 12, 2011 that he wished to proceed only on 20 the claims found cognizable by the Court. (Doc. 12.) Accordingly, on August 17, 2011, the Magistrate 21 Judge issued findings and recommendations dismissing Plaintiff’s incognizable claims. (Doc. 13.) 22 In addition, on August 8, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 23 recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. (Doc. 11.) The Magistrate 24 Judge explained in this regard that Plaintiff has not met his burden of proving that preliminary relief is 25 warranted and that Plaintiff appears to be precluded from injunctive relief in this action because he is 26 a class member in Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, 2:90-cv-0520 LKK JFM (E.D. Cal.). See McNeil v. 27 Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163, 1165 (10th Cir. 1991) (class members must bring “claims for equitable relief 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 through the class representative until the class action is over or the consent decree is modified.”). 2 Both findings and recommendations contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 3 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days of being served with the findings 4 and recommendations. As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not filed any objections. 5 The Court has conducted a de novo review of this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 6 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds both 7 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The findings and recommendations issued August 8, 2011 are ADOPTED in full; 10 2. Plaintiff’s September 27, 2010 motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 3) is DENIED; 11 3. The findings and recommendations issued August 17, 2011 are ADOPTED in full; 12 4. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claims against Defendants 13 Obaiza, Walker, and Wilson are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim; 14 5. 15 Plaintiff’s First Amendment access to the courts claim against Defendant Ferguson is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim; 16 6. 17 Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief on his Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claims are DISMISSED; 18 7. 19 Plaintiff’s requests for monetary damages on his official capacity claims are DISMISSED; and 20 8. This action shall proceed on the following claims: (1) inadequate medical care in 21 violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Ferguson and Lackovic; and (2) 22 retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against Defendants Ferguson and 23 Lackovic. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: ciem0h September 20, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
