(PC)Wallace v. White et al, No. 1:2020cv00844 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 18 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/8/2021. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM JAMES WALLACE, II, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 J. WHITE, et al., 15 No. 1:20-cv-00844-NONE-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. Nos. 16, 18) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff William James Wallace, II is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 12, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and 21 recommendations recommending that this case be allowed to proceed on plaintiff’s claims against 22 defendants Lopez, Wade, White, and John Doe for deliberate indifference to the allegedly 23 unconstitutional conditions of plaintiff’s confinement in violation of his Eighth Amendment 24 rights as alleged in the second amended complaint. (Doc. No. 18.) The findings and 25 recommendations further recommended that all other defendants and claims be dismissed without 26 prejudice. (Id.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained 27 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id. 28 at 10-11.) No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 3 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 4 analysis.1 5 Accordingly, 6 1. 7 The findings and recommendations entered on January 12, 2021 (Doc. No. 18) are adopted in full; 8 2. 9 This case shall proceed on plaintiff’s claims against defendants Lopez, Wade, White and John Doe for deliberate indifference to the allegedly unconstitutional 10 conditions of plaintiff’s confinement in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights 11 as alleged in the second amended complaint (Doc. No. 16); 12 3. 13 ///// 14 ///// 15 ///// 16 ///// 17 ///// 18 ///// All other defendants and claims are dismissed without prejudice 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s claims concerning alleged unsanitary conditions, raw sewage, and mold in his place of confinement be allowed to proceed, but that plaintiff’s claims that he did not receive reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) be dismissed without prejudice due to non-compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20. The undersigned interprets the findings and recommendations as recommending that plaintiff’s claims regarding his shoes be included within the group of ADA claims that should be dismissed with prejudice. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that he cannot wear regular shoes because of his disabilities and that has requested special orthopedic shoes to facilitate his transfer in and out of his wheelchair, but that CDCR has failed to provide him with appropriate footwear. (Doc. No. 16 at 3.) Although plaintiff asserts that it is unsanitary for him to have no shoes, his central complaint with regard to shoes appears to be that CDCR is not providing specific shoes to him as an accommodation for his disabilities. Plaintiff is already proceeding on claims against CDCR and individual defendants in their official capacities for violating the ADA, in part due to their alleged failure to provide him with orthotics. (See Wallace v. CDCR, 1:20-cv-905, Doc. Nos. 20, 22, 27.) 2 1 1 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to reflect the dismissal of defendants D. Fernandez, 2 H. Shirley, and Bowlin on the Court’s docket, and to add defendants Lopez, Wade, 3 and John Doe; and 4 5. 5 6 7 8 This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 8, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
