Opinion
1:15-cv-01754-LJO-EPG-PC
04-05-2016
JOSEPH D. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT SHERMAN ON PLAINTIFF'S CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CLAIM AND RELATED STATE CLAIMS, AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 20 DAYS
Joseph D. Rodriguez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case now proceeds on the original Complaint filed by Plaintiff on November 19, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint names as defendants Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Governor of California); Kelly Harrington (Director of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation); and Stuart Sherman (Warden of the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF)), and alleges claims for adverse conditions of confinement under the Eighth Amendment and related state claims.
The Court screened Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that it states a cognizable claim under § 1983 against Stuart Sherman. (ECF No. 6.) On December 8, 2015, Plaintiff was granted leave to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court that he is willing to proceed only on the Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim against defendant Stuart Sherman found cognizable by the Court and related state claims. (Id.) On February 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice informing the Court that he is willing to proceed only on the cognizable claim against defendant Stuart Sherman and related state claims. (ECF No. 11.)
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. This action proceed only against defendant Stuart Sherman, on Plaintiff's claim for adverse conditions of confinement under the Eighth Amendment, and related state claims;
2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; and
3. Defendants Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Kelly Harrington be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims against them;
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 5 , 2016
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE