(PC) Ring v. Allenby ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREW ARLINGTON RING, No. 1:18-cv-01283-NONE-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM 14 C. ALLENBY, et al., (Doc. No. 24) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Andrew Arlington Ring is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 30, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be 22 granted. (Doc. No. 24.) The magistrate judge found plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Doc. 23 No. 22) failed to provide allegations sufficient, if proven, to show the defendants were 24 “consciously indifferent” or “grossly negligent” in providing medical care, as required in order 25 for a civil detainee to state a cognizable claim for inadequate medical care under the “Youngberg 26 professional judgment standard.” (Doc. No. 24 at 4-6.) The magistrate judge further found that 27 the allegations fail to show that Defendant Doctor Rasheed, who allegedly damaged plaintiff’s optic nerves during surgery, was acting under color of state law when he performed the surgery. wOow 4:40 UV VLCOU MAAR VRE MVVUPTCIN CO FNCU Veivete FP OAyt ove 1 | (Ud. at 6.) The magistrate judge also found that, “[b|ecause [p]laintiff has received two prior 2 | opportunities to amend ..., and his pleading has the same deficiencies as prior complaints, ... 3 | further amendment would be futile.” (Ud. at 1 (citing Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 4 | (9th Cir. 2012).) 5 Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations on August 12, 2020. (Doc. 6 | No. 27.) Inhis objections, plaintiff states that the “irresponsibility of the CA Department of State 7 | Hospitals-Coalinga and Dr. Karim Rasheed|[’s| inability to provide basic medical treatment 8 | directly lead to plaintiff's loss of eye sight.” (Ud. at 2-3.) 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(©), this court has conducted a 10 | de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's 11 | objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 12 | proper analysis. 13 The court is sympathetic to plaintiffs claims and medical condition. However the court 14 || agrees with the magistrate judge’s finding that the allegations set forth in plaintiff's complaint fail 15 | to sufficiently allege that any defendant acted with conscious indifference or gross negligence, as 16 | opposed to ordinary negligence. As the magistrate judge noted, this finding does not preclude 17 | plaintiff from pursuing a state-law claim for medical negligence in state court. Rather, the finding 18 | only means that plaintiffs allegations are not sufficient to state a cognizable federal constitutional 19 || claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Accordingly, 21 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 30, 2020 (Doc. No. 24) are 22 adopted in full; 23 2. This action is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable federal claim; and, 24 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 25 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ 26 Li fa £5 Dated: _ September 1, 2020 ee T Soe 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28