(PC) Garcia v. Holland, et al., No. 1:2019cv00222 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that This action proceed against Defendants K. Holland. W.J. Sullivan, J. Gutierrez, K. Allen, D. Mason and R. Escarcega for the denial of outdoor exercise in violation of the Eighth Amendment; Defendant R. G roves and J. Jones are Dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim; Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a District Judge to this action -New Cases Number is 1:19-cv-00222 LJO-SAB (PC); referred to Judge O'Neill,signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 03/27/2019. Objections to F&R due 14-Day Deadline (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GILBERTO GARCIA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. K. HOLLAND, et.al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-00222-SAB (PC) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS [ECF Nos. 5, 7] Plaintiff Gilberto Garcia is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On March 1, 2019, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff 21 stated a cognizable claim against Defendants K. Holland. W.J. Sullivan, J. Gutierrez, K. Allen, D. 22 Mason and R. Escarcega for the denial of outdoor exercise in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 23 (ECF No. 5.) However, Plaintiff did not state a cognizable claim against Defendants R. Groves and J. 24 Jones. (Id.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint or notify the Court in writing of 25 his intent to proceed only the retaliation claim. (Id.) On March 25, 2019, Plaintiff notified the Court 26 of his intent to proceed only against K. Holland. W.J. Sullivan, J. Gutierrez, K. Allen, D. Mason and 27 R. Escarcega. (ECF No. 7.) As a result, the Court will recommend that this action only proceed 28 against Defendants K. Holland. W.J. Sullivan, J. Gutierrez, K. Allen, D. Mason and R. Escarcega for 1 1 the denial of outdoor exercise in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and Defendants R. Groves and J. 2 Jones be dismissed for the reasons stated in the Court’s March 1, 2019 screening order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 4 (2007); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 5 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 6 1. This action proceed against Defendants K. Holland. W.J. Sullivan, J. Gutierrez, K. Allen, 7 D. Mason and R. Escarcega for the denial of outdoor exercise in violation of the Eighth 8 Amendment; 2. 9 Defendants R. Groves and J. Jones are dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim; and 10 11 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a District Judge to this action. 12 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 13 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1)(B). Within fourteen (14) days 14 after being served with these Finding and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with 15 the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff 16 is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on 17 appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.2d F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 18 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: 22 March 27, 2019 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 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.