Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05079/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05079-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HUNG D. NGUON,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O CLARK, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5079 AWI SMS P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND

DEFENDANTS FROM ACTION 

Hung D. Nguon (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 17, 2003, in the U.S. District Court for the

Central District of California. The action was transferred and received in this Court on January

14, 2004. Plaintiff asserts claims for alleged constitutional violations under § 1983 and tort

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 14 Filed 06/01/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

claims under state law and names the following defendants: Director of Corrections, all policy

makers, D. Adams, Lt. W.S. Wadkins, Lt. E. Smith, Lt. J. Saunders, Dr. Kim Nguyen, C/O

Rainey, C/O McKain, Assoc. Warden Cohl, CCII Linda Smart, Cpt. J.G. Arceo; Sgt. Cake; D.

Donald Deering, M.T.A. Benjie; Linda L. Rianda, Arline, Stephen S. Hall, Kirsten Dean, all

medical staff and correctional officers on duty on Sunday. 

On May 3, 2005, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. The Court

found that the Complaint stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for failure to protect

against Defendants Clark, Rainey and McKain, however, it did not allege cognizable claims

against any of the remaining Defendants. 

On May 13, 205, Plaintiff notified the Court that he did not intend to file an Amended

Complaint and wished to proceed solely on the claim found cognizable by the Court. 

Accordingly, in light of the above and for the reasons set forth in this Court’s Order

Dismissing with leave to amend issued May 3, 2005, the Court RECOMMENDS: 

1. That the action proceed on Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim against Defendants

Clark, Rainey and McKain only; and 

2. That the claims of excessive force claim, the Eighth Amendment medical care

claim, due process (inmate appeals and property), conspiracy, supervisory liability

claim be DISMISSED from the action; and 

3. Defendants “Director of Corrections, all policy makers, D. Adams, Lt. W.S.

Wadkins, Lt. E. Smith, Lt. J. Saunders, Dr. Kim Nguyen, Assoc. Warden Cohl,

CCII Linda Smart, Cpt. J.G. Arceo; Sgt. Cake; D. Donald Deering, M.T.A.

Benjie; Linda L. Rianda, Arline, Stephen S. Hall, Kirsten Dean, all medical staff

and correctional officers on duty on Sunday” be DISMISSED from the action. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with

a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with the

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 14 Filed 06/01/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 14 Filed 06/01/05 Page 3 of 3