Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00813/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00813-6/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT KEITH ERNST,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID FRANCES RAMOS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-00813-DAD-AC (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(Doc. No. 30)

Plaintiff Scott Keith Ernst is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On October 24, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s second amended 

complaint and found that plaintiff had stated cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate 

indifference claims against defendants Ashe, Miller, Beck, Akhila, Ginwalla, Ramos, Nelson 

Singh, Wong, and Miraflor, and cognizable First Amendment retaliation claims against 

defendants Ramos, Singh, and Miller, but that plaintiff failed to state any other cognizable claims 

against the remaining defendants. (Doc. No. 30.) Accordingly, on October 24, 2023, the 

assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action 

proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in the screening order and that all other claims 

Case 2:21-cv-00813-DAD-AC Document 46 Filed 01/31/24 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

and defendants be dismissed from this action without leave to amend due to plaintiff’s failure to 

state a cognizable claim against them. (Id. at 8–13.) The pending findings and recommendations 

were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 

twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id. at 13.) To date, no objections have been filed, and the 

time in which to do so has passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 24, 2023 (Doc. No. 30) are 

adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 

claims against defendants Ashe, Miller, Beck, Akhila, Ginwalla, Ramos, Nelson, 

Singh, Wong, and Miraflor, and plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims 

against defendants Ramos, Singh, and Miller;

3. All other claims brought by plaintiff in this action are dismissed;

4. All other defendants are dismissed as defendants in this action; and

5. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-00813-DAD-AC Document 46 Filed 01/31/24 Page 2 of 2