(PC) Rhodes v. Ruiz ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PERCY LEE RHODES, Case No. 1:21-cv-00942-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 13 v. 14 JOSEPH RUIZ, et al., Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge 15 Defendants. 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 16 17 Plaintiff Percy Lee Rhodes is a former pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On December 6, 2022, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it states 20 cognizable claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendants Ruiz, 21 Lightner and McComas, as well as an access to courts claim against Defendant Cortez. (Doc. 9.) 22 The Court further found that Plaintiff failed to state any other cognizable claim against any other 23 named Defendant. (Id.) The Court therefore directed Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint 24 curing the deficiencies in his pleading or to notify the Court that he wishes to proceed only on the 25 claims found cognizable. (Id. at 22-23.) 26 On December 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that “he is willing to proceed only 27 on his claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against defendants Ruiz, Lightner and McComas, and the denial of access to the courts against Cortez.” (Doc. 10.) 1 Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order (Doc. 9), the 2 | Court RECOMMENDS that: 3 1. Defendants Blair, Curran, W. Freitas, A. Huron, M. Padilla, and B. Ward be 4 DISMISSED; and, 5 2. The claims in Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED, except for its deliberate 6 indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Ruiz, Lightner and 7 McComas, and the access to courts claim against Defendant Cortez, pursuant to 42 8 US.C. § 1983; 9 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a district judge to this action. 10 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 11 | Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days of the date of 12 | service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the 13 | Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 14 | Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 15 | rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 16 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 17 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 'S |) Dated: _ January 4, 2023 | Wr bo 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28