Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00324/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00324-2/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

SAAHDI ABDUL COLEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOORE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-00324-KES-CDB

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS FOR 

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBEY 

LOCAL RULES AND FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

(Doc. 9)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS

14-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

Plaintiff Saahdi Abdul Coleman is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. 

I. INTRODUCTION

On November 6, 2024, the Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 7.) It determined 

Plaintiff had plausibly alleged Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical 

needs claims against Defendants Bean, Crawford, Doe 1, Doe 2, McDaniel, Moore, Russell, and 

Vasquez, but failed to allege any other cognizable claim against any other named Defendant. (Id. 

at 10-16.) Plaintiff was ordered to do one of the following within 21 days of the date of service of 

the order: (1) to notify the Court in writing that he did not wish to file a first amended complaint 

Case 1:23-cv-00324-KES-CDB Document 11 Filed 12/11/24 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

and was willing to proceed only on the Eighth Amendment Eighth Amendment deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Bean, Crawford, Doe 1, Doe 2, 

McDaniel, Moore, Russell, and Vasquez, with the remaining claims against any defendant to be 

dismissed; or (2) to file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the 

screening order; or (3) to file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 18.) 

On December 4, 2024, when more than 21 days passed without a response, the Court 

issued Findings and Recommendations to dismiss this action without prejudice for Plaintiff’s 

failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute. (Doc. 9.) 

On December 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice indicating he was willing to proceed on the 

claims the Court deemed cognizable and did not intend to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 10.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Because Plaintiff has now indicated he wishes to proceed on the claims the Court found 

cognizable in its November 6, 2024, screening order, the Court will vacate the Findings and 

Recommendations to dismiss this action. Nonetheless, the Court notes two issues concerning 

Plaintiff’s written notice to proceed on the cognizable claims. First, Plaintiff’s notice is dated 

November 21, 2024, but was not filed with the Court until December 9, 2024, which the Court 

perceives under the circumstances to reflect an unreasonable amount of time for delivery to the 

Court. Second, Plaintiff’s notice is not accompanied by a proof of service. As Plaintiff was 

advised in the First Informational Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case, issued 

March 6, 2023, “on all documents filed with the Court, the pro se plaintiff must attach a Proof of 

Service, indicating the date on which the filing was turned over to prison authorities. A document 

submitted without proof of service may be stricken/returned or if filed after the deadline, deemed 

not timely filed.” (See Doc. 4 at 4 [& sample Proof of Service attached].) Plaintiff was required to 

provide a proof of service with this filing but did not do so. Moving forward, Plaintiff shall 

include a proof of service with every document submitted to the Court for filing. 

Despite the untimely notice, the Court will recommend this action proceed only on 

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against 

Defendants Bean, Crawford, Doe 1, Doe 2, McDaniel, Moore, Russell, and Vasquez, and that the 

Case 1:23-cv-00324-KES-CDB Document 11 Filed 12/11/24 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

remaining claims against any defendant be dismissed. 

III. CONCLUSION, ORDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS

For the reasons given above, the Court VACATES the Findings and Recommendations 

(Doc. 9) issued December 4, 2024. 

Further, the Court RECOMMENDS that: 

1. This action PROCEED only on the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 

to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Bean, Crawford, Doe 1, Doe 

2, McDaniel, Moore, Russell, and Vasquez; 

2. Defendants Dunn, Johnson, Perez, and Sanchez be DISMISSED; and

3. Any remaining claims be DISMISSED.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 

objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without 

leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the 

Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the 

exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise 

reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may be 

disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result 

in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 

2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00324-KES-CDB Document 11 Filed 12/11/24 Page 3 of 3