(PC) Martinez v. California State Prison Corcoran ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRED FELEKI MARTINEZ, No. 1:19-cv-00108-DAD-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON CORCORAN, et al., (Doc. Nos. 16, 18, 22) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Fred Feleki Martinez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On May 7, 2019, plaintiff filed a letter, which the assigned magistrate judge interpreted as 22 a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 16.) On May 16, 2019, the assigned magistrate 23 judge issued findings and recommendation recommending that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 24 injunction be denied. (Doc. No. 18.) The findings and recommendation were served on plaintiff 25 and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 26 service. (Id. at 4.) 27 On May 20, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint, and found 28 that plaintiff stated cognizable claims for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth 1 Amendment against defendants Rubio, Alcocer, and Quintana; for failure to intervene against 2 defendants Stroud and Alcocer; and for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against 3 defendants Rubio, Alcocer, Quintana, and Stroud. (Doc. No. 19.) The assigned magistrate judge 4 found that plaintiff’s complaint failed to state any other cognizable claims for relief. (Id.) 5 Plaintiff was ordered to file either a first amended complaint or a written notice informing the 6 court that he was willing to proceed only on the cognizable claims identified by the court within 7 thirty (30) days. (Id. at 9–10.) 8 On June 10, 2019, after discovering that plaintiff had been transferred to a new prison, the 9 magistrate judge ordered the Clerk of the Court to re-serve the May 16, 2019 findings and 10 recommendation and the May 20, 2019 screening order on plaintiff at his new institution of 11 confinement. (Doc. No. 20.) The magistrate judge ordered that, in light of the re-service, any 12 objections to the May 16, 2019 findings and recommendation were due within fourteen (14) days 13 from the date of re-service. (Id. at 2.) Additionally, any first amended complaint or written 14 notice to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the court was then made due within 15 thirty (30) days from the date that the screening order was re-served on plaintiff. (Id.) 16 On June 13, 2019, plaintiff filed a written notice stating that he did not wish to file an 17 amended complaint and that he wished to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in 18 the screening order.1 (Doc. No. 21.) Consequently, on June 20, 2019, the assigned magistrate 19 judge issued findings and recommendations that this action proceed on plaintiff’s cognizable 20 claims. (Doc. No. 22.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and 21 ///// 22 1 Plaintiff’s complaint sought injunctive relief in the form of a ban on the use of the outpatient 23 housing unit cells and installation of security cameras outside all mental health care crisis beds and suicide watch cells at California State Prison-Corcoran. (Doc. No. 1 at 6.) The assigned 24 magistrate judge found that “Plaintiff’s subsequent transfer out of Corcoran rendered his prayer for injunctive relief moot.” (Doc. No. 22 at 9.) Plaintiff had argued in his motion for preliminary 25 injunction that prison officials told him he would be transferred back to Corcoran. (Doc. No. 16.) Since filing his motion for preliminary injunction, plaintiff has been transferred to Salinas Valley 26 State Prison for further mental health treatment. (Doc. No. 26.) Should plaintiff be transferred 27 back to CSP-Corcoran, he may be able to then state a cognizable claim for injunctive relief by way of motion to amend his complaint. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105, 103 28 S. Ct. 1660, 1667, 75 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1983). 1 | contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 2 | service. Ud. at 10.) 3 More than fourteen days have passed since the May 16, 2019 findings and 4 | recommendation were re-served and the June 20, 2019 findings and recommendations were 5 | served, and no objections to either have been filed. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 7 | de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the 8 | assigned magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and 9 | proper analysis. 10 For these reasons, 11 1. The findings and recommendation issued on May 16, 2019 (Doc. No. 18) are 12 adopted in full; 13 2. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 16) is denied; 14 3, The findings and recommendations issued on June 20, 2019 (Doc. No. 22) are 15 adopted; 16 4. This action shall proceed on plaintiff's complaint, filed January 25, 2019 (Doc. 17 No. 1), for excessive use of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against 18 defendants Rubio, Alcocer, and Quintana; for failure to intervene against 19 defendants Stroud and Alcocer; and for deliberate indifference to serious medical 20 needs against defendants Rubio, Alcocer, Quintana, and Stroud; 21 5. All other claims and defendants are dismissed based on plaintiff's failure to state a 22 claim upon which relief may be granted; and 23 6. This action is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 24 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ December 5, 2019 Vi AL aaa 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28