Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03234/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03234-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN JACKSON,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:09-cv-3234 KJN P

vs.

TESSIE RALLOS, M.D., et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 25, 2010, defendants Rallos, Traquina, Rohrer and

Mahon-Howe filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for professional medical negligence

based on the grounds that plaintiff failed to plead compliance with the California Claims Act and

to comply with the statute of limitations. Defendants’ motion was noticed for hearing July 29,

2010.

On July 13, 2010, plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to defendants’

motion. Plaintiff does not oppose the dismissal of the second count for professional (medical)

negligence, and agrees to proceed solely on count one, alleged cruel and unusual punishment

based on denial of medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. 

////

Case 2:09-cv-03234-KJN Document 16 Filed 07/16/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Good cause appearing, defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The July 29, 2010 hearing will be vacated. 

On November 30, 2009, plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Defendants have not filed the form indicating consent or refusal

to consent. Thus, the court will direct the Clerk of Court to assign a district judge to this case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and

2. The July 29, 2010 hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss is vacated.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ June 25, 2010 motion to

dismiss be granted. This action shall proceed solely on count one. (Compl. at 7-8.)

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twentyone days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: July 15, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

jack3234.mtd

Case 2:09-cv-03234-KJN Document 16 Filed 07/16/10 Page 2 of 2