(PC) Bullard v. St. Andra et al, No. 1:2017cv00328 - Document 28 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 25 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Non-Cognizable Claims, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 03/17/18. (Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 EFREN DANIELLE BULLARD, 11 12 13 14 CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00328-LJO-MJS (PC) Plaintiff, v. R. ST. ANDRA, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS NONCOGNIZABLE CLAIMS (ECF No. 25) 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 17 rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 18 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On June 16, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF 20 No. 8) and found it states cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against CO Jane Doe 21 and CO Benson; a conspiracy claim against CO Jane Doe and CO Benson; and a First 22 Amendment retaliation claim against CO Davis. (ECF No. 10.) Although not expressly 23 stated, the remaining claims apparently were dismissed for failure to state a claim. 24 On February 23, 2018, the Magistrate Judge re-screened Plaintiff’s complaint, 25 recognizing that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 26 2017), held that a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction to dismiss claims with 27 prejudice in screening prisoner complaints absent the consent of all parties, even if the 28 1 plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, as plaintiff had here. (ECF No. 2 25.) Concurrently, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 3 recommending that the undersigned dismiss the non-cognizable claims. (Id.) The parties 4 were given fourteen days to file objections to those findings and recommendations. No 5 objections were filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 7 the Court has conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff’s case. Accordingly, the Court finds 8 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 9 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations issued February 23, 2018 are adopted 10 in full; 11 12 2. That this action continue to proceed only Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 13 claims against CO Jane Doe and CO Benson; conspiracy claim against CO 14 Jane Doe and CO Benson; and First Amendment retaliation claim against 15 CO Davis; and 3. That all other claims and defendants are dismissed with prejudice. 16 17 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ March 17, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
