Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01001/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01001-4/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK ANTHONY BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. EMMERT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-01001-DAD-CKD (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

CERTAIN CLAIMS

(Doc. No. 11)

Plaintiff Mark Anthony Brown is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a 

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On August 16, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint filed in 

this action and found that plaintiff had stated several cognizable claims against defendants (listed 

below), but that plaintiff had failed to state any other cognizable claims. Specifically, the 

magistrate judge identified the following cognizable claims in plaintiff’s complaint:

1. A claim arising under the Eighth Amendment against 

defendant Emmert for exposure to harmful conditions of 

confinement when Emmert referred to plaintiff as a “rat” 

over a loudspeaker.

/////

/////

Case 2:22-cv-01001-DAD-CKD Document 24 Filed 11/28/22 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

2. Claims arising under the Eighth Amendment against 

defendants Wooden and Gonzales for exposure to harmful 

conditions of confinement with respect to their not taking 

preventative measures when defendant Emmert referred to 

plaintiff as a “rat” over a loud-speaker.

3. A claim arising under the First Amendment against 

defendant Emmert for retaliating against plaintiff for filing a 

prisoner grievance by calling plaintiff a “rat” over a loudspeaker and by denying plaintiff phone calls and showers.

4. Claims arising under the Eighth Amendment for failure to 

provide medical treatment against defendants Drake, Tuyen, 

Archie and Lieu for their failure to provide plaintiff with his 

inhaler and decontaminate plaintiff from exposure to pepper 

spray.

(Doc. No. 6 at 2.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint or notify the court of 

his willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in the screening order within 

twenty-one (21) days after service of the screening order. (Id. at 3.) On August 24, 2022, 

plaintiff notified the court that he was willing to proceed only on the claims identified by the 

magistrate judge in the screening order as cognizable. (Doc. No. 9.)

Consequently, on August 30, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff’s claims found to be 

cognizable in the screening order and that all other claims brought by plaintiff in his complaint be 

dismissed. (Doc. No. 11 at 4.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on 

plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 

days after service. (Id.) To date, no objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so 

has now passed. 

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

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 30, 2022 (Doc. No. 11) are 

adopted in full;

/////

Case 2:22-cv-01001-DAD-CKD Document 24 Filed 11/28/22 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. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s claims as follows:

a. A claim arising under the Eighth Amendment against defendant Emmert 

for exposure to harmful conditions of confinement when Emmert referred 

to plaintiff as a “rat” over a loudspeaker;

b. Claims arising under the Eighth Amendment against defendants Wooden 

and Gonzales for exposure to harmful conditions of confinement with 

respect to their not taking preventative measures when defendant Emmert 

referred to plaintiff as a “rat” over a loud-speaker;

c. A claim arising under the First Amendment against defendant Emmert for 

retaliating against plaintiff for filing a prisoner grievance by calling 

plaintiff a “rat” over a loud-speaker and by denying plaintiff phone calls 

and showers; and

d. Claims arising under the Eighth Amendment for failure to provide medical 

treatment against defendants Drake, Tuyen, Archie and Lieu for their 

failure to provide plaintiff with his inhaler and decontaminate plaintiff 

from exposure to pepper spray;

3. All other claims brought by plaintiff in this action are dismissed; and 

4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 23, 2022 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-01001-DAD-CKD Document 24 Filed 11/28/22 Page 3 of 3