(PC) Burrell v. Lozovoy et al, No. 1:2016cv01118 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that This action proceed on Plaintiffs claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment Defendants Lozovoy and Sao, and for retaliation in violation of the Firs t Amendment against, Defendant Sao; all other claims and defendants be dismissed for failure to state a claim re 23 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint filed by Angee Burrell ; referred to Judge Ishii,signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/7/17. Objections to F&R due by 12/26/2017 (Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANGEE BURRELL, Case No. 1:16-cv-01118-SAB (PC) 11 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS RUSLAN LOZOVOY, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 (ECF Nos. 24, 25) 16 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Plaintiff Angee Burrell is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this 19 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On November 22, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and 21 found that it stated a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in 22 violation of the Eighth Amendment Defendants Lozovoy and Sao, and for retaliation in violation 23 of the First Amendment against Defendant Sao, but no other cognizable claims. (ECF No. 24.) 24 Plaintiff was granted an opportunity to amend his complaint, or notify the Court that he is 25 agreeable to proceeding only on the claims identified as cognizable. (Id. at p. 11-12.) 26 On December 1, 2017, Plaintiff notified the Court that he will not amend his complaint, 27 and agrees to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in the Court’s November 22, 28 2017 screening order. (ECF No. 25.) As a result, the Court will recommend that this action only 1 1 proceed on the claims identified above, and all other claims and defendants be dismissed for the 2 reasons stated in the Court’s November 22, 2017 screening order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft 3 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); 4 Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a 5 6 district judge to this action. 7 Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 8 1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s claim for deliberate indifference to a serious 9 medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment Defendants Lozovoy and 10 Sao, and for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against, Defendant 11 Sao; and 2. 12 All other claims and defendants be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 13 which relief could be granted consistent with the Court November 22, 2017 order. 14 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 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: December 7, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2