Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00942/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00942-5/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

PERCY LEE RHODES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH RUIZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-0942 JLT CDB (PC) 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO CORRECT 

SCRIVINER’S ERROR AND TO REINSTATE 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT 

McCOMAS

(Doc. 22) 

Percy Lee Rhodes is a former pretrial detainee who seeks to hold several individuals liable 

for violations of his civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 26, 2023, the 

assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations to correct a scrivener’s error, 

recommending the failure to protect and failure to train claims asserted against Defendant 

McComas be permitted to proceed in this action. (Doc. 22.) The magistrate judge also 

recommended Defendants be granted a 30-day extension of time within which to file a responsive 

pleading addressing all cognizable claims identified in the findings. (Id. at 3.) 

The Court advised Plaintiff that any objections were due within 14 days of the date of 

service. (Doc. 22 at 3.) The Court informed him also that the “[f]ailure to file objections within 

the specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 

F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) 

Plaintiff did not oppose the Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:21-cv-00942-CDB Document 23 Filed 07/17/23 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

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this 

case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 

Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The failure to protect and failure to train claims asserted against Defendant McComas, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, SHALL proceed in this action.

2. Within 30 days of this order, Defendants SHALL file a responsive pleading 

addressing the following claims: (a) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs 

claims against Defendants Ruiz, Lightner, and McComas; (b) an access to courts claim 

against Defendant Cortez; (c) failure to protect and failure to train claims against 

Defendant Lightner; and (d) failure to protect and failure to train claims against 

Defendant McComas.

3. The matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2023 

Case 1:21-cv-00942-CDB Document 23 Filed 07/17/23 Page 2 of 2