Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00416/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00416-13/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

GREGORY GOODS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARSON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-00416-DAD-JDP (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND 

DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS

(Doc. Nos. 83, 101)

Plaintiff Gregory Goods 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 December 5, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s third amended 

complaint (“TAC”) and found that plaintiff had stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for 

deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against defendants Carlson, Anderson, Benito, 

Hanson, Illa, Lim, Soltanian, Kelly, and Roberts, but that plaintiff had not stated any cognizable 

claims against defendants Baughman, Franceschi, and Holiday. (Doc. No. 101.) Thus, the 

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 the claims brought 

against defendants Baughman, Franceschi, and Holiday be dismissed. (Id. at 6.) The pending 

findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 

Case 2:20-cv-00416-DAD-JDP Document 118 Filed 04/26/24 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

objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) On December 19, 

2023, defendants filed objections to those findings and recommendations, but only to the extent 

that plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim brought against defendant Kelly was found to be 

cognizable. (Doc. No. 104.) Plaintiff did not file a response to defendants’ objections or

objections of his own.

In their objections, defendants assert that the magistrate judge erred in listing defendant 

Kelly among the list of defendants to whom plaintiff had “presented his serious injuries” and who 

had allegedly failed to provide or summon the medical care that plaintiff needed, because 

plaintiff’s TAC does not include any such allegations as to defendant Kelly. (Doc. No. 104 at 2.) 

The undersigned has reviewed the allegations in the TAC that pertain to defendant’s Kelly’s 

alleged conduct and finds defendants’ objections in this regard to be well taken. In contrast to the 

other defendants listed in the findings and recommendations as having cognizable claims brought 

against them, plaintiff does not allege in his TAC that his injuries (i.e., stab wounds and fractured 

nose and eye socket bone, which he alleges he sustained in an attack on January 8, 2017 and 

which remained visible for twenty days) were presented to defendant Kelly (a registered nurse). 

Rather, plaintiff alleges that defendant Kelly allegedly stated in a mental health chrono to prison 

health care staff dated February 2, 2017 that plaintiff engaged in “self-harming behaviors (i.e., 

inserting pen filler into [his] chin),” and defendant Kelly allegedly stated falsely in plaintiff’s 

medical record on March 28, 2027 that plaintiff had a history of drug use. (Doc. No. 100 at 11, 

12.) The undersigned agrees with defendants that these allegations are not sufficient to state a 

cognizable deliberate indifference claim against defendant Kelly. Accordingly, the undersigned 

will adopt the pending findings and recommendations as to all defendants except defendant Kelly, 

who will also be dismissed from this action due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim 

against her.

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, including defendants’

objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 

record and by proper analysis as to plaintiff’s claims brought against defendants Carlson, 

Case 2:20-cv-00416-DAD-JDP Document 118 Filed 04/26/24 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

Anderson, Benito, Hanson, Illa, Lim, Soltanian, Roberts, Baughman, Franceschi, and Holiday. 

The court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations as to the claim brought against 

defendant Kelly, which will be dismissed.

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 5, 2023 (Doc. No. 101) 

are adopted, in part;

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

indifference claims against defendants Carlson, Anderson, Benito, Hanson, 

Illa, Lim, Soltanian, and Roberts; and

b. All other claims brought by plaintiff in this action are dismissed due to 

plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim;

2. Defendants Kelly, Baughman, Franceschi, and Holiday are terminated as 

defendants in this action; 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that defendants 

Kelly, Baughman, Franceschi, and Holiday have been terminated from this action;

4. To the extent the findings and recommendations issued on April 24, 2023 (Doc. 

No. 83) remain pending, those findings and recommendations have been rendered 

moot by this order; and

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

proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-00416-DAD-JDP Document 118 Filed 04/26/24 Page 3 of 3