(PC) Rannels v. Smith ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL W. RANNELS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00049-KES-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS PUYAGOYA AND SOMMERS 14 SMITH, et al., 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Daniel W. Rannels is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate 19 indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Smith, Tortrice, Sommers and 20 Puyagoya. 21 I. INTRODUCTION 22 Following screening of the second amended complaint, this Court issued its Order Finding 23 Service Appropriate on February 5, 2024. (Doc. 33.) Service of Defendants Steve Smith, Stoc 24 Tortrice, Sommers and Puyagoya was to be effected under the Court’s e-service pilot program. 25 (Id. at 1-2.) The Order included the following information regarding Defendants Puyagoya and 26 Sommers: “Puyagoya, allegedly employed as a doctor at the [Sierra Conservation Center in 27 Jamestown, California (‘SCC’)] in 2018 and/or 2019” and “Sommers, allegedly employed as a doctor at the SCC in 2018 and/or 2019.” (Id. at 2, emphasis in original.) 1 On February 9, 2024,1 the Court received a notice of intent not to waive personal service 2 as to Defendants Puyagoya and Sommers because neither could be identified. (Doc. 36 [“Unable 3 to Identify”].) On February 23, 2024, the United States Marshal advised the Court that service 4 could not be effected on Defendants Puyagoya and Sommers because despite reaching out to the 5 litigation coordinator at SCC, neither individual could be identified based upon the information 6 provided. (Doc. 37.) 7 On February 27, 2024, the Court issued its Order To Show Cause (“OSC”) In Writing 8 Why Defendants Puyagoya And Sommers Should Not Be Dismissed From This Action For 9 Failure To Provide Sufficient Information To Effect Service. (Doc. 38.) Plaintiff was to provide a 10 written response within 30 days of the date of service of the OSC. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff was advised 11 he could respond to the OSC “by providing additional information that will assist the United 12 States Marshal in locating Defendants Puyagoya and Sommers for service of process.” (Id.) 13 On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff In The Interest Of The 14 Court Claimant Dismisses Defendants Puyagoya And Summers From This Action In The Interest 15 Of Justice From This Civil Action 42 U.S.C. 1983.” (Doc. 41.) Plaintiff seeks to dismiss 16 Defendants Puyagoya and Sommers “effective immediately” and to “dismiss the civil complaint 17 action against” them. (Id.) He states: “on my own consent to dismiss complaints against 18 Puyagoya and [Sommers] without prejudice.” (Id.) 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 The Court construes Plaintiff’s March 14, 2024, filing to be a notice of willingness to 21 proceed on his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against 22 Defendants Smith and Tortrice, and to dismiss his claims against Defendants Puyagoya and 23 Sommers. Accordingly, the Court will recommend this action proceed only Plaintiff’s Eighth 24 Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Smith 25 and Tortrice and recommend the dismissal, without prejudice, of Defendants Puyagoya and 26 Sommers from this action. 27 1 Also on February 9, 2024, the Court received a notice of intent to waive personal service for Defendants Smith and Tortrice. (Doc. 35.) Thereafter, Defendants Smith and Tortrice waived service of process; a 1 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2 For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS: 3 1. This action PROCEED only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 4 to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Smith and Tortrice; and 5 2. That Defendants Puyagoya and Sommers be DISMISSED, without prejudice, from 6 this action. 7 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to 8 this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these 9 Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The 10 document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 11 Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 12 rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 13 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: March 15, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27