(PC) Powell v. Lynch

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 12, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00875
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADAM RANDOLPH POWELL, No. 2:23-CV-0875-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JEFF LYNCH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s original complaint, ECF No. 1. 19 On August 8, 2023, the Court issued an order addressing the sufficiency of 20 Plaintiff’s complaint. See ECF No. 11. The Court determined that Plaintiff’s complaint states 21 cognizable Eighth Amendment safety claims against Defendants Moirara and Lively arising from 22 a January 22, 2022, incident at the California Medical Facility. See id. The Court also 23 determined that Plaintiff’s claims against the prison warden, Defendant Lynch, are insufficient. 24 See id. Plaintiff was provided leave to amend and cautioned that, if no amended complaint was 25 filed within the 30-day time period provided therefor, the action would proceed on Plaintiff’s 26 safety claims against Defendants Moirara and Lively and that the Court would recommend 27 dismissal of Defendant Lynch. See id. As of November 2, 2023, Plaintiff had not filed an 28 amended complaint and the Court directed service on Defendants Moirara and Lively consistent 1 | with the August 8, 2023, order. See ECF No. 12. The Court now recommends dismissal of 2 || Defendant Lynch. 3 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends as follows: 4 1. This action proceed on Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 1, as to Plaintiff’s 5 || Eighth Amendment safety claim against Defendants Moirara and Lively. 6 2. Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Lynch be DISMISSED for failure to 7 || state a claim. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 9 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 10 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 11 || with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 12 | Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 13 Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 15 | Dated: January 11, 2024 Ss..c0_, 16 DENNIS M. COTA 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28