(PC) Garcia v. Baniga ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE GARCIA, 1:19-cv-01258-AWI-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION 13 v. PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT DR. RODRIGUEZ FOR INADEQUATE 14 U. BANIGA, M.D., et al., MEDICAL CARE UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, AND THAT ALL OTHER 15 Defendants. CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED 16 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Jose Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this 24 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed the 25 Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint names as defendants Plaintiff 26 names as defendants Dr. U. Baniga, Dr. Rodriguez, California Correctional Health Care Services 27 (CCHCS), and Does #1-5 (Medical Provider Policy Makers) (collectively, “Defendants”), and 28 brings claims for inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment, for creating or 1 implementing a flawed policy, for retaliation, and for improperly handling Plaintiff’s prison 2 appeals. 3 The court screened the Complaint and found that Plaintiff states a cognizable claim 4 against defendant Dr. Rodriguez for failure to provide adequate medical care under the Eighth 5 Amendment, but no other claims against any of the Defendants. (ECF No. 8.) On September 23, 6 2019, the court issued a screening order requiring Plaintiff to either (1) file an Amended 7 Complaint, or (2) notify the court that he is willing to proceed only with the medical claim against 8 defendant Dr. Rodriguez found cognizable by the court. (Id.) 9 On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to proceed only with the 10 medical claim found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 12.) 11 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 12 1. This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Dr. Rodriguez for 13 failure to provide adequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment; 14 2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; 15 3. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants for creating or implementing a flawed 16 policy, for retaliation, and for improperly handling Plaintiff’s prison appeals be 17 dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon 18 which relief may be granted; 19 4. Defendants Dr. U. Baniga, California Correctional Health Care Services 20 (CCHCS), and Does #1-5 (Medical Provider Policy Makers) be dismissed from 21 this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them upon which 22 relief may be granted; and 23 5. This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, 24 including initiation of service of process. 25 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 26 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within 27 fourteen (14) days after the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff 28 may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 1 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 2 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 3 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: October 10, 2019 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28