Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00083/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00083-6/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

DOMINIC (AKA DIAMOND) VARGAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00083-JLT-CDB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

(1) DISMISS DEFENDANT RUDICH, (2) 

DISMISS CLAIM TWO AS TO CERTAIN 

DEFENDANTS, AND (3) DISMISS 

CERTAIN PLEADED RELIEF IN 

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(Docs. 30 & 33)

14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

Plaintiff Dominic Vargas, also known as Diamond Vargas, is a state prisoner proceeding 

pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In its Third Screening Order (Doc. 30), the Court found Plaintiff’s second amended 

complaint stated cognizable Eighth Amendment medical indifference claims (Claim I) against 

Defendants Leslie Taylor, Robert Mitchell, Stephanie Neumann, Tristan Buzzini, Mollie Rudich, 

and Shama Chaiken,1and a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim (Claim II) against 

1 The Court mistakenly omitted including Claim I in the “Conclusion and Order” section 

of the screening order. (Id. at 13). As set forth in the body of the screening order (id. at 10-11), 

Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded this claim as to all Defendants except Defendant Macomber.

Case 1:20-cv-00083-JLT-CDB Document 34 Filed 10/03/23 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

Defendant Jeff Macomber. (Id. at 10-12). However, the Court further found that Plaintiff had

failed to allege a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against any other Defendant, 

improperly requested injunctive relief in connection with Claim I, and improperly requested a 

declaratory judgment. (Id. at 12).

Plaintiff was granted leave to amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in 

the Third Screening Order, assuming he could do so in good faith. (Id. at 13). On April 19, 2023, 

Plaintiff filed a “Third Amended Complaint Response and Fixes.” (Doc. 33). In that pleading, 

Plaintiff attested that he “want[ed] to stand on my Second Amended Complaint with these facts 

added. The following defendants.” (Id. at 1). Plaintiff thereafter identified four of the named 

Defendants and largely reiterated allegations relating to those four Defendant that were included 

in the second amended complaint with various brief additional factual allegations. (Id. at 1-2).

Plaintiff attached to his three-page response to the Court’s Third Screening Order a 

photocopy of his second amended complaint. Notably, it appears Plaintiff deleted Defendant 

Mollie Rudich from the caption of the second amended complaint. (Cf. Doc. 20 at 1 with Doc. 33 

at 4). Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff’s response as an affirmation that he wishes to 

stand on his second amended complaint as screened and to dismiss Defendant Mollie Rudich (as 

reflected in the proposed operative, third amended complaint).

II. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above and in the Court’s screening order (Doc. 

30), the Court RECOMMENDS that:

1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical indifference claims 

(Claim I) against Defendants Leslie Taylor, Robert Mitchell, Stephanie Neumann, 

Tristan Buzzini, and Shama Chaiken, and ON his Fourteenth Amendment due process 

claim (Claim II) against Defendant Jeff Macomber;

2. Defendant Mollie Rudich be dismissed;

3. Claim II be DISMISSED as to all other Defendants, and

4. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief in connection with Claim I and declaratory 

judgment be STRICKEN. 

Case 1:20-cv-00083-JLT-CDB Document 34 Filed 10/03/23 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

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

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

service of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the 

Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 

rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2023 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00083-JLT-CDB Document 34 Filed 10/03/23 Page 3 of 3