(PC) Sorrells v. United States Marshals Service et al, No. 1:2016cv00081 - Document 68 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 66 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/24/2018. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANNON SORRELLS, 12 No. 1:16-cv-00081-DAD-SAB Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 HORTON, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. Nos. 58, 66, 67) 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Shannon Sorrells is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 17 18 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On November 30, 2017, defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. No. 58.) 20 21 On May 2, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 22 recommending that defendants’ motion be denied. (Doc No. 66.) The findings and 23 recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 24 were to be filed within thirty days after service. (Id.) Defendants filed objections that same day. 25 (Doc. No. 67.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 26 27 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including defendants’ 28 ///// 1 1 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 2 by proper analysis. 3 In their objections, defendants contend that the findings and recommendations erroneously 4 assumed allegations that were not contained in the complaint. See Litmon v. Harris, 768 F.3d 5 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[A] liberal interpretation of a pro se civil rights complaint may not 6 supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.”) (quoting Pena v. Gardner, 7 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992)). Specifically, defendants argue that plaintiff’s complaint 8 contains no allegations suggesting that defendants should have been aware of the risk that 9 plaintiff would suffer a seizure as a result of his failing to receive anti-seizure medication from 10 July 17, 2015 until July 21, 2015. As noted in the findings and recommendations, defendants 11 Horton and Mehlhoff responded to plaintiff’s administrative grievance regarding the alleged 12 failure to properly treat his seizures. (Doc. No. 66 at 5.) The assigned magistrate judge inferred, 13 based upon this response, that both defendants were therefore responsible for plaintiff’s medical 14 treatment and should have been on notice of any potential harm resulting from a failure to provide 15 plaintiff with his medication. (Id. at 6) (“Plaintiff’s allegations demonstrate that both Horton and 16 Mehlhoff were responsible in some respect for the medical treatment and review of such 17 treatment in July 2015.”). The undersigned finds no error with this analysis. 18 Accordingly, 19 1. 20 The findings and recommendations issued May 2, 2018 (Doc. No. 66) are adopted in full; 21 2. Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 58) is denied; and 22 3. Defendants are directed to file a dispositive motion within ninety (90) days from 23 24 25 the date of service of this order. (See Doc. No. 60.) IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 24, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 2