Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00145/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00145-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE PINEDA IBARRA, Case No. 1:07-cv-0145 OWW NEW

(TAG)

 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

vs. (Doc. 9)

 ORDER ADOPTING FINDS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY

MR. JOHN DOE (WALLACE), AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

CHIEF JOHN DOES INSURANCE INC., TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

 (Doc. 9)

 Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff Jorge Pineda Ibarra, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he suffered a work-related injury while he was a civilian

employed by the defendants. Ibarra further contended that the defendants denied him permanent

workers’ compensation benefits and adequatemedical treatment, thereby depriving him of his rights

under the Eighth Amendment to personal safety and health needs and to be free from cruel and

unusual punishment. (Doc. 1). In addition, Ibarra, pursuant to court order, filed an amended motion

to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 8).

On August 3, 2007, the Magistrate Judge screened Ibarra’s complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A, and issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this case be dismissed

because a civilian cannot state a claim upon which relief can be granted based on an alleged Eighth

Amendment violation, and Ibarra had not demonstrated that the defendants were acting under color

of state law, which is a necessary component of a civil rights claim filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

(Doc. 9). Moreover, because no amendment to Ibarra’s complaint could cure the deficiency related

Case 1:07-cv-00145-OWW -TAG Document 18 Filed 10/02/07 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

to the alleged deprivation of Ibarra’s Eight Amendment rights, the Magistrate Judge recommended

that Ibarra’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice. (Id.). In light of the recommendation that the

action be dismissed with prejudice, the Magistrate Judge also recommended that Ibarra’s motion,

as amended, to proceed IFP be denied as moot. (Id.). 

The findings and recommendations were served on Ibarra, with notice that he had 15 to file

objections. (Id.; docket entry dated August 3, 2007). On August 23, 2007, the Magistrate Judge

granted Ibarra’s motion for an extension of time to object to the findings and recommends to and

including September 26, 2007. (Docs. 10, 11). On September 24, 2007, Ibarra timely filed

objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 15). Ibarra contended that he should be

granted leave to amend his complaint, explaining that the Eighth Amendment violation was the

result of the defendants’ refusal to pay for private medical care after he was imprisoned. (Id.). Ibarra

said nothing about the recommendation that his motion to proceed IFP be denied. (Id.). 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 72(b), and Local Rule 72-304, 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

filed on August 8, 2007 are supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. 9), filed August 8, 2007, are ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure

to state a claim upon which relief could be granted; 

3. Plaintiff’s amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 8) is DENIED AS

MOOT; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

Case 1:07-cv-00145-OWW -TAG Document 18 Filed 10/02/07 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

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00145-OWW -TAG Document 18 Filed 10/02/07 Page 3 of 3