-GSA (PC) Ortega v. Yates et al, No. 1:2009cv01476 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that this 14 Action Proceed Only Against Defendant Dr. Duenas on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Claim, and all Other Claims and Defendants be Dismissed; Objections, if any, Due in 30 Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/3/2011. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 11/7/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
-GSA (PC) Ortega v. Yates et al Doc. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD ORTEGA, 12 13 1:09-cv-01476-AWI-GSA-PC Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT DR. DUENAS ON PLAINTIFF’S EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM, AND ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE BE DISMISSED vs. 14 WARDEN JAMES A. YATES, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS / 18 Plaintiff Edward Ortega (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case now proceeds on the First Amended Complaint filed by 20 Plaintiff on August 26, 2010. (Doc. 14.) The First Amended Complaint names Dr. Felix Igbinosa, Dr. 21 Duenas, Nurse Kratts, and Nurse Adonis as defendants, and alleges claims for inadequate medical care 22 in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. 23 The Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 24 found that it states a cognizable claim for relief under section 1983 against Defendant Dr. Duenas, for 25 providing inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On September 16, 2011, 26 Plaintiff was given leave to either file a Second Amended Complaint, or in the alternative, to notify the 27 Court that he does not wish to file a Second Amended Complaint and instead is willing to proceed only 28 on the claims identified by the Court as viable/cognizable in the Court’s order. (Doc. 20.) On 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 September 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed written notice to the Court that he wishes to proceed only on the 2 claims found cognizable by the Court. (Doc. 21.) 3 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 4 1. 5 This action proceed only against defendant Dr. Duenas, for inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 6 2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; 7 3. Plaintiff's claims against defendants Dr. Felix Igbinosa, Nurse Kratts, and Nurse Adonis 8 be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which 9 relief may be granted against them; and 10 4. 11 Plaintiff's Valley Fever claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. 12 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 13 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days 14 after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections with 15 the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 16 Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service 17 of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 18 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 19 right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: 6i0kij October 3, 2011 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.