Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01058/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01058-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAMUEL WINDHAM, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY, et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-1058 MCE CKD P 

ORDER AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On May 13, 2015, this action was removed 

to this court from the Superior Court of Solano County by defendants Sabin and Yun. On 

August 26, 2015, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff has now 

filed an amended complaint. 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners where, as here, the 

prisoner seeks relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental 

entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the 

prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

/////

Case 2:15-cv-01058-MCE-CKD Document 19 Filed 01/28/16 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

27

28

2

 The court has conducted the required screening and finds that plaintiff’s amended 

complaint states actionable claims for violations of the Eighth Amendment and for negligence in 

violation of California law against defendants Sabin and Yun. Plaintiff fails to state a claim 

against defendant Warden Duffy as plaintiff fails to show that he did anything which proximately 

caused any of the injuries alleged. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants Sabin and Yun 

file a responsive pleading concerning plaintiff’s remaining Eighth Amendment and negligence 

claims appearing in plaintiff’s amended complaint within fourteen days, or file a document 

indicating their intent to stand on the answer filed October 5, 2015 within fourteen days. 

 IT IS HEREY RECOMMENDED that defendant Duffy be dismissed. 

 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 fourteen 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 response 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 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: January 27, 2016 

1 

wind1058.1

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-01058-MCE-CKD Document 19 Filed 01/28/16 Page 2 of 2