(PC) Pickard v. Spearman et al, No. 1:2018cv00450 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS for Action to Proceed on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Claim Against Dr. Htay and C/O's Doe #1, #2, and #3, Dismissing All Other Claims and Defendants; CLERK to ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/17/18. This case has been assigned to District Judge Anthony W. Ishii and Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. The New Case No. is: 1:18-cv-0450-AWI-JLT. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R Due Within Twenty-One Days. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL PICKARD, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. SPEARMAN, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00450-JLT (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION TO PROCEED ON PLAINTIFF’S EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM AGAINST DR. HTAY AND C/Os DOE #1, #2, AND #3, DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS Defendants. (Doc. 11) 16 21-DAY DEADLINE 17 CLERK TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 For the reasons discussed in the First Screening Order (Doc. 11), Plaintiff has stated a 20 cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical need in violation of the Eighth 21 Amendment against Dr. Htay and C/Os Doe #1, #2, and #3 upon which he should be allowed to 22 proceed. That order granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to potentially make 23 more of his claims cognizable, or to file a notice that he did not desire to do so. (Id.) The order 24 further indicated that if Plaintiff did not respond, the Court would recommend that the action only 25 proceed on the claims found cognizable. (Id.) Plaintiff did not respond. 26 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff proceed in this action on his Eighth 27 Amendment Claims found cognizable in the First Screening Order (Doc. 11) against Dr. Dr. Htay 28 and C/Os Doe #1, #2, and #3 and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed. The Clerk of 1 1 2 the Court is directed to randomly assign a District Judge to this action. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 3 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within 21 4 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 5 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 6 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 7 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 8 839 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 17, 2018 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 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.
