Siordia v. Cate, et al.
Filing
11
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION for Dismissal of Certain Claims and Defendants, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/2/11. Referred to Judge O'Neill. (Verduzco, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
ROBERT SIORDIA,
CASE NO.
1:11-cv-00742-LJO-MJS (PC)
10
Plaintiff,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR
DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS
11
v.
12
MATHEW CATE, et al.,
(ECF Nos. 9 and 10)
13
Defendants.
14
/
15
16
I.
INTRODUCTION
17
On May 9, 2011, Plaintiff Robert Siordia, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
18
forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF
19
No. 1.) On October 3, 2011, after reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court ordered
20
Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed
21
only on his Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Cate and Yates. (Order, ECF
22
No. 9.) Plaintiff has since notified the Court of his willingness to forgo an amended
23
complaint and proceed with his cognizable Eighth Amendment claims. (Notice, ECF No.
24
10.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Igbinosa and Does one through five
25
should now be dismissed.
26
II.
ANALYSIS
27
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
28
against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
1
§ 1915(A)(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereon if the prisoner has
2
raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which
3
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
4
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(b)(1),(2).
5
The Court reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to this statute and issued a
6
Screening Order on October 3, 2011. (Order, ECF No. 9.) In that Order, the Court found
7
that the Complaint stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Cate
8
and Yates based on the allegations that the two were aware of an increased risk of Valley
9
Fever infection and exhibited deliberate indifference by failing to adopt any measure to
10
mitigate the increased risk. (Id. at 6.) The Court found no other cognizable claims.
11
Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim for inhumane conditions of confinement under
12
the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Igbinosa because Plaintiff did not explain how
13
Igbinosa’s policy regarding surgery masks exhibited deliberate indifference. (Id. at 7.)
14
Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim for inhumane conditions of confinement under
15
the Eighth Amendment against Does # 1 and # 2 because Plaintiff did not allege that either
16
Defendant was aware of the serious medical need. (Id.) Plaintiff failed to state a
17
cognizable claim for inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment against Does
18
# 3, # 4, and # 5 because Plaintiff did not allege that the Defendants were capable of
19
expediting his treatment or that any harm resulted from the delay. (Id. at 8.)
20
The Court gave Plaintiff the option to proceed only against Defendants Cate and
21
Yates on his Eighth Amendment claim or to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has
22
notified the Court that he wishes to proceed only on his Eighth Amendment claim against
23
Defendants Cate and Yates. (Notice, ECF No. 10.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s other claims
24
and all other Defendants should now be dismissed.
25
III.
CONCLUSION
26
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
27
1.
28
Plaintiff be permitted to proceed on his Eighth Amendment claim that
Defendants Cate and Yates were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious
-2-
1
medical need; and
2
2.
3
All of Plaintiff’s remaining claims and the remaining Defendants be
DISMISSED without prejudice.
4
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States
5
District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. §
6
636(b)(l).
7
Recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document
8
should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.”
9
The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive
10
the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.
11
1991).
Within twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
Dated:
ci4d6
November 2, 2011
Michael J. Seng
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
]]>
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?
