(PC) Dixon v. CDCR ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DELSHON DIXON, Case No. 1:24-cv-00954-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CERTAIN PARTIES 13 v. 14 CDCR, et al. (Docs. 7, 10) 15 Defendants. 14-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE 16 Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge 17 18 19 Plaintiff Delshon Dixon (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 20 paupers in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). 21 Background 22 On August 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants the California 23 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), Warden C. Pfeiffer, Correctional 24 Officer Thompson, and Correctional Officer Dewitt. Id. On August 21, 2024, this Court issued a 25 screening order finding Plaintiff’s complaint plausibly alleges Eighth Amendment claims for 26 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendants Thompson and Dewitt but 27 fails to allege cognizable claims against Defendants CDCR and Warden C. Pfeiffer. Id. Plaintiff eI ERE II IR OSI EIRENE OIE IES 1 | first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the Court’s screening order; or (2) 2 | notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended complaint and wishes to 3 | proceed only against Defendants Thomas and Dewitt on his Eighth Amendment claims. /d. at 10. 4 Thereafter, Plaintiff filed two responses to the Court’s screening order indicating that he 5 | wished to proceed only on his Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Thomas and Dewitt. 6 | (Docs. 9-10). 7 | Discussion 8 For the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order (Doc. 7) issued August 21, 2024, the 9 | Court will recommend that this action proceed on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against 10 | Defendants Thomas and Dewitt only, and Defendants CDCR and Warden C. Pfeiffer be 11 | dismissed. 12 | Conclusion and Recommendation 13 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a District 14 | Judge to this action. 15 Further, the Court RECOMMENDS that: 16 1. This action proceed only on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference 17 to serious medical needs against Defendants Thompson and Dewitt; and 18 2. Defendants CDCR and Warden C. Pfeiffer be DISMISSED from this action. 19 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to this 20 | case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days of the date of service of these Findings and 21 | Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The document should be 22 | captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file 23 | objections within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 24 | 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 25 | IT IS SOORDERED. 26 Dated: _ September 6, 2024 | ) Ww Vv KD 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28