(PC) Gaines v. Brown et al, No. 1:2016cv01666 - Document 29 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 20 Findings and Recommendations Finding Cognizable Claims Against Defendants Mirelez and Hoehing and recommending Dismissal of all Other Claims and Defendants, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/6/18. Jackson, S. Kernon, King, S. Lwin, K. Miller, R. Mitchell, Ray, Suede, Zaragoza, T. Boswell and E. G. Brown terminated. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARY LEE GAINES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 BROWN, et al, 15 16 17 Case No. 1:16-cv-01666-LJO-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDING COGNIZABLE CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS MIRELEZ AND HOEHING AND RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS Defendants. (ECF No. 20) Plaintiff Mary Lee Gaines (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 9, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations finding 21 that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint stated cognizable claims for deliberate indifference to 22 medical needs against Defendant Mirelez for not giving Plaintiff her breathing treatment despite 23 Plaintiff’s need for the treatment on February 11, 2014, and against Defendant Hoehing for not 24 assisting Plaintiff when Defendant came to Plaintiff’s cell and Plaintiff was having an asthma 25 attack on February 11, 2014. (ECF No. 20.) The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s 26 claims against all other Defendants, and all other claims against Defendants Mirelez and Hoehing, 27 be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state properly joined and cognizable claims upon 28 which relief may be granted. (Id.) Those findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff 1 1 and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 2 service. (Id.) Following three extensions of time, Plaintiff’s objections were timely filed on 3 March 5, 2018. (ECF No. 28.) 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 5 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 6 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. As indicated, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff merely lists the 7 8 additional Eighth Amendment claims against the remaining defendants, which she alleges are 9 cognizable. As Plaintiff was repeatedly informed, she may not bring unrelated claims against 10 unrelated parties in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 11 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has 12 provided no argument that justifies the joinder in this action of all claims regarding different 13 breathing emergencies arising on different dates, spanning multiple years, involving different 14 defendants. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 16 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 9, 2017, (ECF. No. 20), are 17 adopted in full; 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for claims of 18 19 deliberate indifference to medical needs against Defendant Mirelez for not giving 20 Plaintiff her breathing treatment despite Plaintiff’s need for the treatment on February 21 11, 2014, and against Defendant Hoehing for not assisting Plaintiff when Defendant 22 came to Plaintiff’s cell and Plaintiff was having an asthma attack on February 11, 23 2014; 24 3. Plaintiff’s remaining claims against Defendants Mirelez and Hoehing, and all other 25 claims and defendants, are dismissed from this action, without prejudice, for the 26 failure to state properly joined and cognizable claims upon which relief may be 27 granted; and 28 /// 2 1 4. This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with 2 this order. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ March 6, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.