(PC) Paulus v. Harl ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDDY H. PAULUS II, 1:21-cv-00094-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR CLERK TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT 13 v. JUDGE TO THIS CASE 14 HARL, et al., AND 15 Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION 16 PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT BETRAND FOR VIOLATION OF THE 17 ADA, AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED 18 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS 19 20 21 22 23 Eddy H. Paulus (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 24 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities 25 Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (1994). On January 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Complaint 26 commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) 27 The Complaint names as defendants Captain F. Harl, Officer Bertrand, Officer Ramero, 28 Olga Beregovskaya (Primary Care Physician), and the Assigned Primary Care Team 1 (collectively, “Defendants”), and brings claims for failure to protect Plaintiff, inadequate medical 2 care, violation of the ADA, and failure to train and supervise subordinates. 3 The court screened the Complaint and found that it states a cognizable claim against 4 Defendant Bertrand for violation of the ADA. (ECF No. 9.) On March 30, 2022, the court issued 5 a screening order requiring Plaintiff to either (1) file a First Amended Complaint, or (2) notify 6 the court that he is willing to proceed only with the claim found cognizable by the court. (Id.) 7 On April 6, 2022, Plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to proceed only with the 8 ADA claim found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 10.) 9 Accordingly, the Clerk is HEREBY ORDERED to randomly assign a United States 10 district judge to this case. 11 AND 12 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 13 1. This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Bertrand for 14 violation of the ADA; 15 2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; 16 3. Plaintiff’s claims for failure to protect Plaintiff, inadequate medical care, and 17 failure to train and supervise subordinates be dismissed from this action based on 18 Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted; 19 4. Defendants Captain F. Harl, Officer Ramero, Olga Beregovskaya (Primary Care 20 Physician), and the Assigned Primary Care Team be dismissed from this action 21 based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them upon which relief may 22 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: April 8, 2022 /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