(PC)Johnson v. Honnold, No. 1:2015cv01118 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS for Dismissal of Certain of Plaintiff's Claims and Defendants re 11 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/28/15. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON, CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01118-LJO-MJS 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 v. S. HONNOLD, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (ECF No. 11) Defendant. FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 6.) No other parties 20 have appeared in the action. 21 On September 10, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and concluded 22 that Plaintiff stated cognizable Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim against 23 Defendant Honnold, but no other claims or Defendants. 24 ordered Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness 25 to proceed only on his cognizable claim. On September 25, 2015, Plaintiff notified the 26 Court of his willingness to forgo an amended complaint and proceed with his cognizable 27 claim. (ECF No. 13.) 28 (ECF No. 12.) The Court Accordingly, all claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint except for his Eighth Amendment 1 2 3 medical indifference claim against Defendant Honnold should now be dismissed. The Court hereby RECOMMENDS the following: 1. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff may proceed on his Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim against Defendant Honnold; and 2. All other claims and Defendants be DISMISSED from this action; These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: September 28, 2015 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.