Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00875/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00875-4/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 

WILLIAM PATRICK GARCIA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T. PADGETT, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-0875 AC P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On December 21, 2023, the court screened the complaint and found that plaintiff 

may proceed against defendant Padgett on an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim 

but that the remaining claims against Padgett and the other defendants were insufficient. ECF 

No. 19. Plaintiff was given the options of amending the complaint or proceeding immediately on 

his cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Padgett. Id. at 9. He was further 

advised that if he failed to notify the court how he wanted to proceed, the court would assume that 

he was choosing to proceed on the complaint as screened and would recommend dismissal 

without prejudice of the remaining claims and defendants. Id. The time for plaintiff to notify the 

court as to how he wishes to proceed has now passed, and plaintiff has not made an election or 

otherwise responded to the order. 

///// 

Case 2:21-cv-00875-TLN-AC Document 20 Filed 12/20/24 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 

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

assign a United States District Judge to this action. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, for the reasons explained in the screening order 

(ECF No. 19) and incorporated by reference here: 

1. The claims against defendants Vanni, Geringer, Covello, Tyler, Holmes, Stacy, 

Pedersen, Mulford, Rhode, Santos, Naguchi, Rodriguez de Ayala, Sackett, and Kassis be 

dismissed without prejudice; 

2. The Clerk of Court terminate these defendants from the docket; and 

3. The First Amendment retaliation, due process, and conspiracy claims against defendant 

Padgett be dismissed without prejudice. 

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 twenty-one days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: December 19, 2024 

Case 2:21-cv-00875-TLN-AC Document 20 Filed 12/20/24 Page 2 of 2