Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02488/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02488-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS BRENT FIELDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. MACOMBER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-02488-DAD-CKD (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(Doc. Nos. 18, 20)

Plaintiff Marcus Brent Fields 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 August 5, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. No. 16) be dismissed for 

failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 18.) In the findings and recommendations, the magistrate 

judge first found that plaintiff failed to properly plead an Eighth Amendment deliberate 

indifference claim, as he did not adequately allege that any defendant was subjectively aware that 

placing plaintiff in a double cell, with a cellmate that plaintiff alleges was a homosexual inmate 

with communicable diseases, would create a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff’s health 

or safety. (Doc. No. 18 at 2.) The magistrate judge next concluded that, despite being previously 

Case 2:23-cv-02488-DAD-CKD Document 23 Filed 11/18/24 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

advised that supervisory liability is not a basis for a cause of action under § 1983, plaintiff once 

again named the warden of the institution in question as a defendant without adding any

allegations that would link the warden to an act or omission that constituted a violation of 

plaintiff’s federal rights. (Id. at 3.) For these reasons, the magistrate judge concluded that the 

FAC should be dismissed, without further leave to amend. (See id.) (“It appears to the court that 

further amendment of this case would be futile because the deficiencies have not been cured 

despite being given prior leave to amend.”) Those pending findings and recommendations were 

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

fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 4.) On August 16, 2024, plaintiff filed objections to the 

pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 19.)

Plaintiff’s objections are difficult to decipher, and the court is unable to discern on what 

basis plaintiff objects to the pending findings and recommendations.1 (Id.) Plaintiff does not 

appear to respond to either of the grounds upon which the assigned magistrate judge found that 

his FAC must be dismissed. The court concludes that plaintiff has not articulated any basis upon 

which the findings and recommendations should be rejected. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 

conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and 

proper analysis.

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 5, 2024 (Doc. No. 18) are 

adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. No. 16) is dismissed, without leave to 

amend; 

1

 Plaintiff reiterates facts about his cellmate, who allegedly had various medical conditions and 

“was a homosexual” and “kept trying to tell [him] gay stories,” among more graphic details. 

(Doc. No. 19 at 3.) Plaintiff states that he unsuccessfully “tried to move” to a different cell, in 

part because plaintiff also suffered from various mental and physical health conditions. (Id.) 

Plaintiff also makes various statements in his objections about the canteen, personal care 

packages, and computer access. (Id. at 2–3.) 

Case 2:23-cv-02488-DAD-CKD Document 23 Filed 11/18/24 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

3. Plaintiff’s subsequent motion to appoint counsel and request law library access 

(Doc. No. 20) is denied as having been rendered moot by this order; and

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-02488-DAD-CKD Document 23 Filed 11/18/24 Page 3 of 3