(PC) Vazquez v. Conannan et al, No. 1:2019cv00045 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal of Defendant I. Mathos and Request for Declaratory Relief signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/10/2019. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections to F&R due within Fourteen (14) Days. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN R. VAZQUEZ, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. E. CONANNAN, et.al., 15 Defendants. 16 Case No.: 1:19-cv-00045-DAD-SAB (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT I. MATHOS AND REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF [ECF Nos. 14, 15] Plaintiff Juan R. Vazquez is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On March 7, 2019, the Court issued a screening order granting Plaintiff leave to file a second 20 amended complaint, or notify the Court within thirty days of his intent to proceed on the cognizable 21 Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Conannan, Silveira, Kamen, Siegrist, Hitchman and 22 Vanblargen. (ECF No. 14.) On April 10, 2019, Plaintiff notified the Court that he does not intend to 23 file a second amended complaint, and would like to proceed on the claim found cognizable. (ECF No. 24 15.) 25 Therefore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 26 1. For the reasons explained in the Court’s March 7, 2019 screening order, this matter 27 proceed against Defendants Conannan, Silveira, Kamen, Siegrist, Hitchman and Vanblargen, for 28 deliberate indifference in violation of the Eight Amendment; and 1 2. 1 2 Defendant L. Mathos be dismissed from the action for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; and Plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief be dismissed as unnecessary. 3 3. 4 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 5 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 6 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 7 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 8 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 9 result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. 10 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 11 1991)). 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: 15 April 10, 2019 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.