From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harper v. Cal. Prison Indus. Auth.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 14, 2018
Case No. 1:17-cv-01717-LJO-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 1:17-cv-01717-LJO-EPG (PC)

06-14-2018

JASON HARPER, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED, EXCEPT FOR PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT BLAZO FOR FAILURE TO PROTECT IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT AND FOR DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO SERIOUS MEDICAL NEEDS IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT (ECF NOS. 1 & 11) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS

Jason Harper ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on December 20, 2017. (ECF No. 1). The Court screened Plaintiff's complaint. (ECF No. 11). The Court found that Plaintiff "stated cognizable claims against defendant Blazo for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment and for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment." (Id. at 7). The Court also found that Plaintiff "failed to state any other cognizable claims." (Id).

The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claims against defendant Blazo for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment and for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, amending the complaint, or standing on the complaint subject to the Court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge consistent with the screening order. (Id. at 8).

On June 8, 2018, Plaintiff notified the Court that he is willing to proceed only on the claims against defendant Blazo for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment and for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 12).

Accordingly, for the reasons explained in the Court's screening order that was entered on March 2, 2018 (ECF No. 11), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he is willing to proceed only on the claims against defendant Blazo for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment and for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment (ECF No. 12), it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff's claims against defendant Blazo for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment and for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14 , 2018

/s/_________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Harper v. Cal. Prison Indus. Auth.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 14, 2018
Case No. 1:17-cv-01717-LJO-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2018)
Case details for

Harper v. Cal. Prison Indus. Auth.

Case Details

Full title:JASON HARPER, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY, et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 14, 2018

Citations

Case No. 1:17-cv-01717-LJO-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2018)