(PC)Ricks v. Onyeje et al, No. 1:2015cv01148 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal of Certain Claims and Defendants, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/5/16: 14-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 SCOTT K. RICKS, 10 11 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. O. ONYEJE, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:15-cv-01148-AWI-BAM (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 18 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on 20 May 8, 2015. On November 30, 2016, District Judge Anthony Ishii ordered this action to be 21 related to Scott v. Austria, et al., 1:15-cv-1147-AWI-BAM. This matter was referred to the 22 undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 23 On November 4, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 24 1915A, and found that it stated a cognizable claim against Defendants Onyeje and Navarro for 25 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Fed. R. 26 Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 27 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Plaintiff was ordered to either file an amended complaint or notify the 28 Court that he was willing to proceed only on the cognizable claim. (ECF No. 22.) 1 1 On November 23, 2016, Plaintiff notified the Court that he did not intend to file an 2 amended complaint and wished to proceed only with the cognizable claim against Defendants 3 Onyeje and Navarro. (ECF No. 23.) Therefore, the Court will recommend that this case proceed 4 only on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants Onyeje and Navarro for deliberate indifference to 5 serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that all other claims and 6 defendants be dismissed, for the reasons explained in the November 4, 2016 screening order. 7 See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2007) (court should identify the deficiencies 8 in the complaint and grant Plaintiff opportunity to cure deficiencies prior to dismissal). 9 10 11 12 13 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants Onyeje and Navarro for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and 2. All other claims and defendants be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 15 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1)(B). Within 16 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Finding and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 17 file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 18 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 19 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.2d F.3d 20 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara December 5, 2016 24 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.