(PC) Coats v. Chaudhri, et al., No. 1:2013cv02032 - Document 68 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER adopting 59 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and dismissing certain claims and defendants signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/2/2018. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM THOMAS COATS, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRI, et al, Case No. 1:13-cv-02032-AWI-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (ECF No. 59) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff William Thomas Coats (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Chaudhri has 19 appeared in this action, while Defendant Sao has not. The Doe defendants, now identified as 20 Defendants Convalecer, Fairchild, Gladden, Gundran, and Nguyen, have not yet been served. 21 On October 9, 2014, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and 22 found that he stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Chaudhri and John Doe emergency 23 medical staff at the prison for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the 24 Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 8.) After Plaintiff notified the Court that he wished to proceed 25 only on the claims found cognizable, the Court dismissed all other claims and defendants from 26 this action. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.) On September 22, 2017, the undersigned granted Defendant 27 Chaudhri’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of Defendant Chaudhri 28 and against Plaintiff. (ECF No. 51.) This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s deliberate 1 1 indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants John Doe emergency medical 2 staff, now identified as Defendants Convalecer, Fairchild, Gladden, Gundran, and Nguyen. 3 On December 18, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge re-screened plaintiff’s complaint, 4 recognizing that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017), 5 had held that a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction to dismiss claims with prejudice in 6 screening prisoner complaints even if a plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, as 7 Plaintiff did here. (ECF No. 59.) Concurrently, the magistrate judge issued findings and 8 recommendations recommending that the undersigned dismiss the non-cognizable claims. (Id.) 9 The parties were given fourteen days to file objections to those findings and recommendations. 10 11 The parties did not file any objections, and the time in which to do so has expired. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the 12 undersigned has conducted a de novo review of the case. The undersigned concludes the findings 13 and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 14 15 16 17 18 19 Accordingly IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 18, 2017, (ECF No. 59), are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Sao are dismissed for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and 3. This action proceeds solely on Plaintiff’s claims for deliberate indifference to serious 20 medical needs against Defendants Convalecer, Fairchild, Gladden, Gundran, and Nguyen, 21 as alleged in the complaint, those claims having been found to be cognizable in the 22 magistrate judge’s prior screening orders, (ECF Nos. 8, 59). 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 2, 2018 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
