Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00206/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00206-2/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

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

JOHN PAUL JONES MURPHY, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

K. CLARK, JR., et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00206-EPG (PC)

 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN 

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE 

DISMISSED

(ECF NOS. 14 & 17)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

FOURTEEN DAYS 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN 

DISTRICT JUDGE

John Paul Jones Murphy (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on March 1, 2019. (ECF No. 14). The 

Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 17). The Court found that only the following 

claims should proceed past the screening stage: Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Amobi for 

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Sanchez, Rodriguez, Vang, and Aguirre for failure to 

protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants 

Sanchez, Rodriguez, Vang, and Aguirre for negligence. (Id.).

The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claims found 

cognizable by the Court in the screening order, amending the complaint, or standing on the 

complaint subject to the Court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge 

consistent with the screening order. (Id. at 18). On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff notified the 

Case 1:19-cv-00206-DAD-EPG Document 19 Filed 02/11/20 Page 1 of 2
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

Court that he wants to proceed only on the claims found cognizable in the screening order. 

(ECF No. 18).

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 

January 21, 2020 (ECF No. 17), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to 

proceed only on the claims found cognizable in the screening order (ECF No. 18), it is 

HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s 

claim against defendant Amobi for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment; Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Sanchez, Rodriguez, Vang, 

and Aguirre for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and Plaintiff’s claims 

against Defendants Sanchez, Rodriguez, Vang, and Aguirre for negligence.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

(14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 

(9th Cir. 1991)).

Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district 

judge to this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00206-DAD-EPG Document 19 Filed 02/11/20 Page 2 of 2