Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01743/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01743-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHELLE (a/k/a MYCHAL) 

CONCEPCION,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01743-NONE-JLT (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DISMISS CLAIMS NOT FOUND 

COGNIZABLE

14-DAY DEADLINE

The Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. 15) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

section 1915A and found that it states cognizable claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth

amendments and the Affordable Care Act, but it improperly names J.C. Kelso and J. Carrick as 

defendants in their official capacities. (Doc. 16.) The Court therefore directed Plaintiff to file a

second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in its order or notify the Court that 

he wishes to proceed only the claims found cognizable. (Id.)

In response to the Court’s screening order, Plaintiff filed a notice that he “wishes to 

proceed only on his claims against CDCR, CCHCS, Diaz in his official capacity, and the Doe 

defendants and to dismiss Kelso and Carrick as defendants.” (Doc. 18.) For this reason, and for 

the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order (Doc. 16), the Court RECOMMENDS that 

J.C. Kelso and J. Carrick be DISMISSED as defendants.

Case 1:18-cv-01743-JLT-CDB Document 19 Filed 02/13/20 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

27

28

2

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to a United States District Judge, 

pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of 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.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 

rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01743-JLT-CDB Document 19 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 2