(PC) Harper v. California Prison Industry Authority et al, No. 1:2017cv01717 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending that All Claims and Defendants be Dismissed, Except for Plaintiff's Claims Against Defendant Blazo for Failure to Protect in Violation of the Eighth Amendment and for Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs in Violation of the Eighth Amendment 1 , 11 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 6/14/2018: 14-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 JASON HARPER, Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 17 19 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED, EXCEPT FOR PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT BLAZO FOR FAILURE TO PROTECT IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT AND FOR DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO SERIOUS MEDICAL NEEDS IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT (ECF NOS. 1 & 11) 16 18 Case No. 1:17-cv-01717-LJO-EPG (PC) Jason Harper (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on December 20, 2017. (ECF No. 21 1). The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 11). The Court found that Plaintiff 22 “stated cognizable claims against defendant Blazo for failure to protect in violation of the 23 Eighth Amendment and for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the 24 Eighth Amendment.” (Id. at 7). The Court also found that Plaintiff “failed to state any other 25 cognizable claims.” (Id). 26 The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claims against 27 defendant Blazo for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment and for deliberate 28 indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, amending the 1 1 complaint, or standing on the complaint subject to the Court issuing findings and 2 recommendations to a district judge consistent with the screening order. (Id. at 8). 3 On June 8, 2018, Plaintiff notified the Court that he is willing to proceed only on the 4 claims against defendant Blazo for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment and 5 for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 6 (ECF No. 12). 7 Accordingly, for the reasons explained in the Court’s screening order that was entered 8 on March 2, 2018 (ECF No. 11), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he is willing 9 to proceed only on the claims against defendant Blazo for failure to protect in violation of the 10 Eighth Amendment and for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the 11 Eighth Amendment (ECF No. 12), it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and 12 defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Blazo for failure to 13 protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment and for deliberate indifference to serious medical 14 needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge 16 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 17 (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 18 written objections with the Court. 19 Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 20 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 21 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 22 (9th Cir. 1991)). The document should be captioned “Objections to 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 14, 2018 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 2