(PC) Bejaran v. Adams et al, No. 1:2009cv00478 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 12/14/2009, Recommending that Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment Claim be Dismissed and Defendants Adams, Machenro, Rodriguez, Silva, Lopez-Espinoza, Briggs, Rangel, CDCR, and Corcoran State Prison de Dismissed re 1 . Matter referred to Judge Ishii. (Objections to F&R due by 1/19/2010) (Figueroa, O)

Download PDF
(PC) Bejaran v. Adams et al Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JESSE EDWARD BEJARAN, 10 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00478-AWI-YNP-SMS (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 12 13 v. DERRAL ADAMS, et al., 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 November 10, 2009, the Court issued an order finding that 18 Plaintiff’s complaint states cognizable claims against Defendants Junious, Gomez and Berna for 19 violation of the Eighth Amendment, but does not state a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim 20 against the remaining defendants. On December 7, 2009, Plaintiff notified the Court that he does 21 not wish to amend and is willing to proceed on the claims found cognizable. Based on Plaintiff’s 22 notice, this Findings and Recommendations now issues. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 23 (9th Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to 24 dismissing for failure to state a claim). 25 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment 26 claim be dismissed and Defendants Adams, Machenro, Rodriguez, Silva, Lopez-Espinosa, 27 Briggs, Rangel, CDCR and Corcoran State Prison be dismissed. 28 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) 2 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written 3 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 4 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 5 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 6 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: icido3 December 14, 2009 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 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.