(PC) Edwards v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

E.D. California

(PC) Edwards v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, E.D. California·Decided December 4, 2023·No. 1:23-cv-01180·Unknown

Opinion

KADEEM EDWARDS, 1:23-cv-01180-ADA-SKO (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO v. DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS CORRECTIONS AND 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

Defendant. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 6, 2023, the Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 10.) It found Plaintiff stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant Jane Doe, L.V.N., but failed to state any other cognizable claim against any other defendant. (Id. at 4-7.) Plaintiff was directed to do one of the following within 21 days: (1) notify the Court he did not wish to file a first amended complaint and instead was willing to proceed only on the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant Jane Doe, the remaining claims to be dismissed; or (2) file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the Court’s order, or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 7-9.) On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice indicating his wish to proceed only on the claim found cognizable by the Court. (See Doc. 11.) For the reasons given above, the Court RECOMMENDS that: 1. This action PROCEED only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant Jane Doe L.V.N., the remaining claims to be dismissed; and 2. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and John Does 1 through 10 be DISMISSED from this action. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KADEEM EDWARDS, 1:23-cv-01180-ADA-SKO (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO v. DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS CORRECTIONS AND 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

Defendant. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 6, 2023, the Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 10.) It found Plaintiff stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant Jane Doe, L.V.N., but failed to state any other cognizable claim against any other defendant. (Id. at 4-7.) Plaintiff was directed to do one of the following within 21 days: (1) notify the Court he did not wish to file a first amended complaint and instead was willing to proceed only on the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant Jane Doe, the remaining claims to be dismissed; or (2) file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the Court’s order, or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 7-9.) On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice indicating his wish to proceed only on the claim found cognizable by the Court. (See Doc. 11.) For the reasons given above, the Court RECOMMENDS that: 1. This action PROCEED only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant Jane Doe L.V.N., the remaining claims to be dismissed; and 2. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and John Does 1 through 10 be DISMISSED from this action. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

(PC) Edwards v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

(PC) Edwards v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ((PC) Edwards v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related