(PC) Soria v. Zuniga

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 10, 2021
• Docket: 1:18-cv-00635
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 STEVEN SORIA, No. 1:18-cv-0635-NONE-JLT (PC) 12 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 13 Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT 14 v. ON THE PLEADINGS 15 RAFEL ZUNGIA, et al., (Doc. Nos. 22, 26) 16

17 Defendants.

19 Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking

20 relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 Before the court is a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by defendants Allison, 23 Gonzalez, and Herron on the ground that plaintiff is attempting to extend Bivens v. Six Unknown 24 Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), to a new context. (Doc. No. 22.) On December 2, 25 2020, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations recommending that 26 defendants’ motion be denied, reasoning that the claim does not present a new context relative to 27 the type of claim allowed under the decision in Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) 28 (recognizing a damages remedy against federal prison officials for failure to provide adequate 1 | medical treatment under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause). (Doc. 2 | No. 26.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and which contained 3 | notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 4 | days. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 5 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 6 || supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly: 7 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 2, 2020 (Doc. No. 26), are adopted 8 in full; 9 2. Defendants’ May 28, 2020, motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 22) is 10 denied; and 11 3. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent 12 with this order. 13 | Tr Is SO ORDERED. ~ 14 A) Ow | OF Dated: _ February 9, 2021 wea rE = 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28