(PC) Herrera v. Ahlin et al, No. 1:2014cv00164 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 21 Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections; ORDER ADOPTING 20 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Dismissing Certain Defendants, and that this Action Proceeds on Plaintiff's Claim Against Doe Defendants for Excessive Force signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/07/2016. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBEN HERRERA, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:14-cv-00164-LJO-BAM-PC ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS (ECF No. 21) v. PAM AHLIN, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS, AND THAT THIS ACTION PROCEEDS ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM AGAINST DOE DEFENDANTS FOR EXCESSIVE FORCE (ECF No. 20) Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff Ruben Herrera is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in a civil rights action 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On May 6, 2016, the assigned Magistrate Judge entered findings and recommendations 24 regarding Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, in which he alleged that, while he was detained 25 at Coalinga State Hospital, he climbed a basketball pole in protest on September 18, 2011, and 26 was shot down from the pole using non-lethal rounds. (ECF No. 20.) The Magistrate Judge 27 recommended that this action proceed only on an excessive force claim against the Doe DPS 28 officer or officers that fired non-lethal rounds against Plaintiff, and that all other claims and 1 1 defendants be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim. Plaintiff was 2 provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within fourteen 3 (14) days. On May 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections to the 4 5 findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff subsequently filed the objections 6 themselves on May 26, 2016. (ECF No. 22.) The Court will grant the requested extension and 7 consider the objections.1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 8 9 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Plaintiff objection that it is “reasonable to 10 presume” that hospital officials ordered the alleged use of force against him, or that they knew of 11 the use of force and could have interfered, is not based on any well-pleaded facts in his second 12 amended complaint. Plaintiff’s unsupported conclusions and conjectures are not sufficient to 13 state any claim against those officials. Plaintiff also reiterates his allegations against Defendant Randhawa that the doctor was 14 15 responsible for recommending his involuntary placement in the SSU based on a medical 16 diagnosis. He argues that Defendant Randhawa is liable because, had Defendant Randhawa not 17 recommending Plaintiff’s placement, he would not have protested the placement and been 18 injured in his eventual fall from the basketball pole. On the contrary, Plaintiff has not alleged 19 sufficient facts to connect Defendant Randhawa with the use of force against him. Instead, the 20 magistrate judge correctly found that Plaintiff’s factual allegations were not sufficient to state a 21 claim against Defendant Randhawa. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds 22 23 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 24 /// 25 /// 26 Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time also raises issues related to discovering the identity of the Doe defendant(s). That matter has been referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge, and will be addressed 28 in a separate order by that judge. 27 1 2 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. recommendations (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED; 3 4 2. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on May 6, 2016 (ECF No. 20), are ADOPTED in full; 5 6 Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file objections to the findings and 3. This action now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, filed on 7 July 20, 2016, on an excessive force claim against the Doe DPS officer or officers 8 that fired non-lethal rounds against Plaintiff; 9 4. All remaining claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action; 10 5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to reflect the dismissal of Defendants Pam Ahlin, 11 Audrey King, George Maynard, and Rajinder Randhawa on the court’s docket; 12 and 13 6. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ November 7, 2016 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
