From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Norris v. Youngblood

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 1, 2021
1:21-cv-00704-NE-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2021)

Opinion

1:21-cv-00704-NE-SAB (PC)

11-01-2021

URIE NORRIS, Plaintiff, v. DONNY YOUNGBLOOD, et al., Defendants.


ORDER HOLDING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN ABEYANCE FOR 30 DAYS

(DOC. NO. 22)

Plaintiff Urie Norris is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On October 14, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's first amended complaint and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 22.) On October 25, 2021, plaintiff timely filed objections to those findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 23.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. As the findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 22 at 4) explain, to maintain a deliberate indifference claim regarding the dangers of COVID-19, a plaintiff must provide more than generalized allegations that defendants have not done enough to control the spread. Plaintiff was provided with this standard in the initial screening order (Doc. No. 18 at 7) but again failed to provide sufficient details in his amended complaint. Plaintiffs objections to not indicate how he might cure these defects if given another chance to amend his complaint.

Nonetheless, plaintiff indicates that he has been in consultation with a lawyer about the possibility of securing the assistance of counsel in this case. (Doc. No. 23.) The court will therefore hold the findings and recommendations in abeyance and will not rule upon them for an additional 30 days to allow these discussions to continue and/or permit a further filing by counsel.

The court sees no reason to question the magistrate judge's reasoned conclusion that appointment of counsel by the court is inappropriate in this case (see Doc. No. 21), but it not entirely clear whether plaintiffs discussions with counsel are contingent upon court funding for representation. To the extent he may be able to secure representation without court funding, the court will afford him a brief period of time within which to do so.

Plaintiff shall file any amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to timely file an amended complaint within this timeframe, the court will rule on the pending findings and recommendations without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Norris v. Youngblood

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 1, 2021
1:21-cv-00704-NE-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2021)
Case details for

Norris v. Youngblood

Case Details

Full title:URIE NORRIS, Plaintiff, v. DONNY YOUNGBLOOD, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 1, 2021

Citations

1:21-cv-00704-NE-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2021)