(PC) Woody v. Bobbala et al, No. 2:2020cv01911 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/20/2020 RECOMMENDING 13 Amended Complaint be dismissed and this case be closed. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Woody v. Bobbala et al Doc. 15 Case 2:20-cv-01911-JAM-CKD Document 15 Filed 11/20/20 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN F. WOODY, 12 13 No. 20-cv-1911 JAM CKD P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MANJULA BOBBALA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. On October 14, 2020, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint as the court is required to do 19 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff 20 has now filed an amended complaint which the court now screens. 21 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a 22 prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon 23 which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 24 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 25 In his amended complaint, as in the original, plaintiff complains about medical care he 26 received for broken bones in his hand. However, also as in the original, plaintiff fails to state a 27 claim upon which relief can be granted as plaintiff fails to point to facts suggesting he suffered 28 injury as a result of a defendant’s deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s condition, or intentionally 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-01911-JAM-CKD Document 15 Filed 11/20/20 Page 2 of 2 1 harmful conduct, as opposed to merely negligent conduct. Accordingly, the amended complaint 2 must be dismissed. In the court’s October 14, 2020 order, the court provided plaintiff with detailed 3 4 information as to how he might state a claim for denial or delay of medical care under the Eighth 5 Amendment. Despite the information provided, plaintiff still does not state an actionable claim, 6 nor has plaintiff made any meaningful progress toward doing so. Since granting plaintiff leave to 7 amend a second time appears futile, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed. 8 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 9 1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed; and 10 2. This case be closed. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 12 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen after 13 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 14 the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 15 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 16 waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 17 1991). 18 Dated: November 20, 2020 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 wood1911.frs 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.
