Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01353/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01353-2/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAYLA SUGGETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOLANO COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER, 

et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-1353 KJN P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a county prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends 

dismissal of the claims found not potentially colorable in the September 27, 2023 order screening 

plaintiff’s original complaint. 

On September 27, 2023, the undersigned found that plaintiff’s complaint stated potentially 

colorable claims for relief against defendants Wellpath Medical and Wong for allegedly violating 

plaintiff’s right to privacy, and against defendants Wellpath Medical, Wong, Roesler and Nevarez 

for allegedly violating plaintiff’s right to adequate medical/mental health care. (ECF No. 5.) 

In the September 27, 2023 order, the undersigned found that the following claims were 

not potentially colorable: 1) all claims against defendant Solano County Justice Center; 2) claims 

alleging defendant Hagen disregarded plaintiff’s grievances and violated the Health Insurance 

Case 2:23-cv-01353-TLN-JDP Document 12 Filed 11/02/23 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

Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”); 3) HIPAA claim against defendant Wellpath 

Medical; 4) claim alleging defendant Hagen violated plaintiff’s right to adequate medical care 

when he found plaintiff’s grievances requesting Adderall unfounded; 5) claim against defendant 

Wellpath Medical for denial of plaintiff’s grievances requesting Adderall; and 6) claims against 

defendant Pillay. (Id.)

On October 30, 2023, plaintiff returned the Notice of Election form. (ECF No. 10.) In 

this form, plaintiff indicated that she opted to proceed on the claims found potentially colorable in 

the September 27, 2023 order. (Id.) Plaintiff did not mark the section of the Notice of Election

form indicating that she consented to dismissal of those claims found not potentially colorable in 

the September 27, 2023 order. (Id.) 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the September 27, 2023 order, the undersigned 

herein recommends dismissal of those claims found not potentially colorable in that order. The 

undersigned separately orders service of the potentially colorable claims. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall appoint a 

district judge to this action; and 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the following claims raised in the original 

complaint be dismissed: 1) all claims against defendant Solano County Justice Center; 2) claims 

alleging defendant Hagen disregarded plaintiff’s grievances and violated HIPPA; 3) HIPAA 

claim against defendant Wellpath Medical; 4) claim alleging defendant Hagen violated plaintiff’s 

right to adequate medical care when he found plaintiff’s grievances requesting Adderall 

unfounded; 5) claim against defendant Wellpath Medical for denial of plaintiff’s grievances 

requesting Adderall; and 6) claims against defendant Pillay. 

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 fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff 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.” Plaintiff is advised that

////

Case 2:23-cv-01353-TLN-JDP Document 12 Filed 11/02/23 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

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: November 2, 2023

Sugg1353.56

Case 2:23-cv-01353-TLN-JDP Document 12 Filed 11/02/23 Page 3 of 3