(PC) Thomas v. Robles et al, No. 1:2009cv00443 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment medical, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, equal protection and due process claims be DISMISSED; Defendants Tuhin, Cruz, Breckner, Ocampo, Hancock, Grewal, Dill, Chen, Ashby, Vasquez, Lopez, Hedgpeth and Molano be DISMISSED. re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, filed by Larry D. Thomas, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/27/2009. (Referred to Judge O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 9/30/2009) (Martin, S)

Download PDF
(PC) Thomas v. Robles et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 LARRY D. THOMAS, 10 11 12 1:09-cv-00443 LJO YNP GSA (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. HECTOR ROBLES, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 2, 2009, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s 18 complaint states cognizable claims against certain defendants. The Court noted that Plaintiff failed 19 to state a claim against the remaining defendnats. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file an 20 amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be 21 cognizable. On July 13, 2009, Plaintiff notified the Court that he does not wish to amend and is 22 willing to proceed on the claims found cognizable. Based on Plaintiff’s notice, this Findings and 23 Recommendations now issues. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (prisoner 24 must be given notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for failure to state 25 a claim). 26 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 27 1. 28 Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, equal protection and due process claims be dismissed. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2. 2 Defendants Tuhin, Cruz, Breckner, Ocampo, Hancock, Grewal, Dill, Chen, Ashby, Vasquez, Lopez, Hedgpeth and Molano be dismissed. 3 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 4 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) 5 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written 6 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 7 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 8 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 9 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij August 27, 2009 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 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.