Thomas B. Van Horn v. Tamera Earl, et al.

E.D. California

Thomas B. Van Horn v. Tamera Earl, et al.

DecidedOctober 23, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-01213

StatusUnknown

This text of Thomas B. Van Horn v. Tamera Earl, et al. (Thomas B. Van Horn v. Tamera Earl, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thomas B. Van Horn v. Tamera Earl, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS B. VAN HORN, No. 1:25-cv-01213-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. TO THIS ACTION 14 TAMERA EARL, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 15 Defendants. CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 16 (ECF No. 8) 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On October 3, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint, and found that Plaintiff 21 stated a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference against Defendants nurse Tamera Earl and 22 Dr. Sergio Rodrigues. (ECF No. 7.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended 23 complaint or notify the Court of his intent to proceed only on the deliberate indifference claim. 24 (Id.) On October 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to proceed on the claim found to be 25 cognizable. (ECF No. 8.) 26 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a District 27 Judge to this action. 28 1 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. This action proceed only on Plaintiffs deliberate indifference against Defendants 3 Nurse Tamera Earl and Dr. Sergio Rodrigues; and 4 2. All other claims and Defendants be dismissed from the action for failure to state a 5 cognizable claim for relief. 6 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 7 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 8 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 9 objections with the Court, limited to 15 pages, including exhibits. The document should be 10 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiffis advised 11 that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 12 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 13 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. Se 16 | Dated: _ October 23, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS B. VAN HORN, No. 1:25-cv-01213-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. TO THIS ACTION 14 TAMERA EARL, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 15 Defendants. CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 16 (ECF No. 8) 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On October 3, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint, and found that Plaintiff 21 stated a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference against Defendants nurse Tamera Earl and 22 Dr. Sergio Rodrigues. (ECF No. 7.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended 23 complaint or notify the Court of his intent to proceed only on the deliberate indifference claim. 24 (Id.) On October 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to proceed on the claim found to be 25 cognizable. (ECF No. 8.) 26 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a District 27 Judge to this action. 28 1 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. This action proceed only on Plaintiffs deliberate indifference against Defendants 3 Nurse Tamera Earl and Dr. Sergio Rodrigues; and 4 2. All other claims and Defendants be dismissed from the action for failure to state a 5 cognizable claim for relief. 6 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 7 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 8 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 9 objections with the Court, limited to 15 pages, including exhibits. The document should be 10 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiffis advised 11 that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 12 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 13 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. Se 16 | Dated: _ October 23, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Thomas B. Van Horn v. Tamera Earl, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-b-van-horn-v-tamera-earl-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack