Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01240/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01240-11/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WESLEY MITCHELL,

Plaintiff, No. 2:11-cv-1240 JAM AC P

vs.

MATTHEW L. CATE, et, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants. and ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By Order filed on April 15, 2013 (ECF No. 49), the Findings and

Recommendations of the undersigned (ECF No. 48) were adopted. Defendant Miranda’s motion

to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) was granted without prejudice to amendment, and plaintiff was

granted twenty-eight days to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has not filed an amended

complaint and the time for doing so has now expired. Therefore, the court will now recommend

dismissal of defendant Miranda with prejudice from this action. 

The court also granted in part the motion to dismiss brought by defendants [RN

J.] Clark, Davey, Gower, McDonald, Sanders and Van Leer. That motion was granted insofar as

it sought dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as to the claim that plaintiff’s

1

Case 2:11-cv-01240-JAM-AC Document 50 Filed 05/29/13 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

Eighth Amendment rights were violated by exposure to extreme cold without adequate clothing

and/or linens, but was denied as to all other claims. ECF No. 49. With respect to defendants J.

Clark, Davey, Gower, McDonald, Sanders and Van Leer,1

 this action now proceeds only on

those claims other than the dismissed Eighth Amendment claim. 

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that defendant Miranda be dismissed with

prejudice from this action.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twentyone days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Courts order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS ORDERED that defendants J. Clark, Davey, Gower, McDonald, Sanders

and Van Leer be directed to file, within twenty-one days, their answer to the allegations of the

complaint with the exception of the specific Eighth Amendment claim regarding exposure to the

cold with inadequate clothing that has been previously dismissed as set forth above. 

DATED: May 29, 2013

 

ALLISON CLAIRE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AC:009/mitc1240.ofr

1

 Defendants Cate, Kernan, Chapman, Harkness and Dangler have previously been

dismissed from the complaint. See Order at ECF No. 17. Defendant D. Clark was also

dismissed previously. See Order at ECF No. 31. 

2

Case 2:11-cv-01240-JAM-AC Document 50 Filed 05/29/13 Page 2 of 2