(PC) Patterson v. Warden and Housing Supervisor, No. 1:2012cv01948 - Document 101 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations and Denying Request for Judicial Notice, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/30/16. (Verduzco, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES PABLO PATTERSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 WARDEN, et al., 15 No. 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 96, 97) 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to the assigned magistrate 19 judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District 20 Court for the Eastern District of California. 21 Plaintiff initially filed his complaint in the matter on November 30, 2012. (Doc. No. 1.) 22 The complaint was screened and dismissed with leave to amend. (Doc. No. 11.) Plaintiff then 23 filed a first amended complaint which was also dismissed by the court with leave to amend. 24 (Doc. Nos. 14 & 15.) Thereafter, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (Doc. No. 19) which 25 was found by the court to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. (Doc. No. 21.) Following 26 some discovery, plaintiff moved to amend his complaint yet again on December 17, 2015 (Doc. 27 No. 91), and lodged a third amended complaint with that motion. (Doc. No. 92.) Defendants 28 1 1 filed a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff’s amending of the complaint, subject to the court’s 2 screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Doc. No. 93.) The magistrate judge assigned to this 3 case then screened plaintiff’s third amended complaint and found that it stated Eighth 4 Amendment claims against defendants Corona and Borbon. (Doc. No. 96.) The magistrate judge 5 recommended permitting these claims to proceed and dismissal of plaintiff’s third amended 6 complaint as to all other defendants named and claims set forth therein. (Doc. No. 96.) 7 Additionally, the assigned magistrate judge recommended that, since this case was filed more 8 than three years ago and plaintiff has been afforded discovery and multiple opportunities to 9 amend his complaint, that the court order that any further amendment would be disallowed as 10 11 futile. (Doc. No. 96.) Plaintiff filed a lengthy request for judicial notice on March 2, 2016, asking that this court 12 take judicial notice of a number of court decisions and documents he believes are relevant to his 13 claims. (Doc. No. 97.) Plaintiff also filed objections to the findings and recommendations to the 14 findings and recommendations on March 21, 2016. (Doc. No. 98.) Defendants filed no 15 objections and the time to do so has passed. 16 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 17 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the objections 18 filed by plaintiff, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 19 and by proper analysis, and they are accordingly adopted in full. 20 Additionally, plaintiff’s request for judicial notice will be denied. A court may take 21 judicial notice of a fact not subject to reasonable dispute because of its ability to be accurately and 22 readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 23 201. Published decisions of other courts are not the proper subject of judicial notice, since those 24 decisions may already be considered by this court in conducting its legal analysis. 25 Moreover, at the screening stage the court’s only job is to assess whether the third 26 amended complaint states cognizable claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At screening, the court must 27 take all facts pleaded in the complaint as true, construe those facts in the light most favorable to 28 the plaintiff, and construe the pleadings of the pro se plaintiff liberally. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 2 1 F.3d 889, 892–93 (9th Cir. 2011). Further, an amended complaint replaces an original complaint, 2 waiving any cause of action alleged in the original complaint but voluntarily not alleged in the 3 amended complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 925–28 (9th Cir. 2012). At 4 the screening phase, there is no need for the court to consider facts submitted outside the 5 complaint, since the court’s only function at that stage is to assess whether the complaint itself 6 contains enough facts to state a claim. Therefore, plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is 7 unnecessary and will be denied. The court understands from plaintiff’s objections that plaintiff may be encountering some 8 9 ongoing mental health issue making it difficult for him to understand legal documents. The 10 undersigned is sympathetic to plaintiff’s situation. The difficulty posed to anyone who is not a 11 lawyer in navigating the legal system is part of the reason why pro se pleadings are to be 12 construed liberally. See, e.g., Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007). Here, the court has 13 construed the pleadings liberally in this case, however, and concurs with the magistrate judge’s 14 findings and recommendations. 15 For the reasons set forth above: 16 1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 96) are adopted in full: 17 a. The Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against defendants 18 Corona and Borbon included in the third amended complaint may proceed; and 19 b. The remainder of the claims and the defendants included in the third amended 20 complaint are dismissed without further leave to amend, given the multiple 21 opportunities plaintiff has been granted for amendment and to conduct discovery. 22 2. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice (Doc. No. 97) is denied; and 23 3. The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent 24 with this order. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: March 30, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 3
]]>
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.
