(PC) Vargas v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al, No. 1:2020cv00083 - Document 35 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 34 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Dismissal of Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/20/2023. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOMINIC (AKA DIAMOND) VARGAS, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al.., Case No.: 1:20-cv-00083-JLT-CDB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc. 34) Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Dominic Vargas is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 3, 2023, the magistrate judge issued 20 Findings and Recommendations finding Plaintiff stated cognizable claims of medical indifference 21 (Claim I) against Defendants Leslie Taylor, Robert Mitchell, Stephanie Neumann, Tristan 22 Buzzini, and Shama Chaiken, and of due process violations (Claim II) against Defendant Jeff 23 Macomber and recommended that all other claims and Defendants be dismissed from the action 24 for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief and that Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive and 25 declaratory relief associated with Claim I be stricken. (Doc. 34.) 26 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 27 any objections were to be filed within 14 days after service and that the failure to file timely 28 objections may result in a waiver of rights on appeal. (Id. at 3, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 1 1 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)). Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint that removed a 2 previously pleaded Defendant and a notice indicating he wished to proceed on the claims as 3 screened. (Doc. 33.) 4 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the Court conducted a de 5 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the 6 Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, 7 the Court ORDERS: 8 1. 9 10 The Findings and Recommendations issued on October 2, 2023 (Doc. 34) are ADOPTED in full. 2. This action SHALL proceed on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint (Doc. 33) 11 only as to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical indifference claims (Claim I) 12 against Defendants Leslie Taylor, Robert Mitchell, Stephanie Neumann, Tristan 13 Buzzini, and Shama Chaiken, and on his Fourteenth Amendment due process 14 claim (Claim II) against Defendant Jeff Macomber. 15 3. 16 17 state claims upon which relief may be granted. 4. 18 19 All other claims and Defendants are DISMISSED from this action for failure to Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief in connection with Claim I and declaratory judgment be STRICKEN. 5. This action is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 20, 2023 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.