-JLT (PC) Huskey v. Ahlin et al, No. 1:2009cv01576 - Document 29 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 25 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Certain Claims; ORDER DISMISSING Claims and FINDING this Action shall Proceed on Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment Claim against Defendant Lasley signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/23/2011. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
-JLT (PC) Huskey v. Ahlin et al Doc. 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH ROBERT HUSKEY, 12 13 14 Case No. 1:09-cv-01576 AWI JLT (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CLAIMS vs. PAM AHLIN, et al., ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS AND FINDING THIS ACTION SHALL PROCEED ON PLAINTIFF’S FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT LASLEY 15 Defendants. 16 / 17 (Doc. 25) 18 Plaintiff is a civil detainee prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. 20 (Doc. 8.) By order filed January 3, 2011, the Court adopted the findings and recommendation which 21 recommended certain claims be dismissed but allowed Plaintiff to proceed on his Fourteenth 22 Amendment claims and associated state law claims as to Defendants Lasley and Pham. (Doc. 12.) On 23 June 3, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc 21.) On June 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed his 24 opposition. (Doc. 22.) 25 On November 21, 2011, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to dismiss as to Defendant 26 Pham, but provided Plaintiff with leave to file a second amended complaint or alternatively proceed only 27 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 as to his claims against Defendant Lasley.1 (Doc. 25.) 2 Additionally, on November 21, 2011, the Court issued its Findings and Recommendations, 3 recommending that all of Plaintiff’s state law claims be dismissed. (Doc. 25.) More specifically, the 4 Court found that Plaintiff had failed to comply with the California Tort Claims Act in failing to 5 commence his federal suit as to Defendants Pham and Lasley within six months of the time in which his 6 administrative complaint filed with the state government claims board was rejected. (Id. at 7-9.) On 7 December 09, 2011, Plaintiff filed his objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 26.) 8 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302, the Court has conducted a de novo 9 review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and 10 recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 11 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. The findings and recommendations issued November 21, 2011, are adopted in full; 13 2. Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants Pham and Lasley for medical malpractice, 14 oppressive conduct, and violations of his due process rights as afforded under the 15 California Constitution are DISMISSED; and 16 3. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s claim regarding Defendant Lasley’s delay in 17 providing treatment and denial of Plaintiff’s request to seek treatment from outside 18 providers violated his due process rights afforded under the Fourteenth Amendment. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: 0m8i78 December 23, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 On December 9, 2011, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wished to proceed only on the claim as to Defendant Lasley, found cognizable by the Court’s November 21, 2011 order. (Doc. 27.) 2