Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00648/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00648-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY MACKEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUDD, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:24-cv-00648-JLT-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS

(Doc. 13)

Terry Mackey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

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

On November 15, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s second

amended complaint, lodged November 11, 2024,

1

and found that Plaintiff stated cognizable 

claims for deliberate indifference to medical care against: (1) Defendants C. Rudd and K. Ram for 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (2) M. Mix for failure to prevent harm in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment; (3) C. Rudd and K. Ram for a state law claim for battery; 

and (4) C. Rudd, K. Ram, and M. Mix for a state law claim for negligence. (Doc. 13.) The 

magistrate judge further recommended that all other claims be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s 

failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted. (Id.) The findings and 

1 Plaintiff lodged a second amended complaint before the first amended complaint could be screened. (Doc. 11.) 

The magistrate judge construed the lodged complaint as a motion to amend and granted Plaintiff’s motion prior to 

screening the second amended complaint. (Doc. 13, pp. 1–2.)

Case 1:24-cv-00648-JLT-BAM Document 17 Filed 12/23/24 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

recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be 

filed within fourteen days after service. (Id.) On November 25, 2024, Plaintiff timely filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc 15.) Plaintiff filed nearly identical 

objections on December 2, 2024. (Doc. 16.)

In his objections, Plaintiff contends that his deliberate indifference claim against 

Defendant Mix and his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against all defendants 

should proceed. (Doc. 15.) Plaintiff also appears to request leave to file a third amended 

complaint to add John Does 1–10 and Jane Does 1–10 as defendants, and to bring this action 

against all officers in their individual and official capacities. (Id.)

With respect to Plaintiff’s objection regarding his deliberate indifference claim against 

Defendant Mix, Plaintiff’s claim for failure to prevent harm in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment includes Plaintiff’s allegation that he placed Defendant Mix on notice of his severe 

pain and that Defendant Mix failed to provide any aid to Plaintiff. That claim will be permitted to 

proceed. However, Plaintiff’s objection regarding his intentional infliction of emotional distress 

claim does not provide any basis for departing from the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations. Plaintiff’s objections do not materially address, for example, the magistrate 

judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff has not alleged facts to suggest he suffered from severe 

emotional distress.

To the extent Plaintiff requests further leave to amend, Plaintiff’s request does not provide 

any explanation as to how the additional defendants or claims apply to the claims raised in this 

action. Plaintiff’s request will therefore be denied without prejudice to filing a renewed motion to 

amend the complaint that provides further information.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 

objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 

by proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 15, 2024, (Doc. 13), are 

ADOPTED IN FULL.

Case 1:24-cv-00648-JLT-BAM Document 17 Filed 12/23/24 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

2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint, (Doc. 15), is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE.

3. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed November 15, 

2024, (Doc. 14), against:

a. Defendants C. Rudd and K. Ram for excessive force in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment;

b. Defendant M. Mix for failure to prevent harm in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment;

c. Defendants C. Rudd and K. Ram for a state law claim for battery; and

d. Defendants C. Rudd, K. Ram, and M. Mix for a state law claim for negligence.

4. All other claims are DISMISSED from this action for failure to state claims upon which 

relief may be granted.

5. This action is referred to the magistrate judge for proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-00648-JLT-BAM Document 17 Filed 12/23/24 Page 3 of 3