Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00942/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00942-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERCY LEE RHODES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH RUIZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00942-JLT-CDB (PC) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO CORRECT SCRIVINER’S ERROR 

AND TO REINSTATE CERTAIN CLAIMS 

AGAINST DEFENDANT McCOMAS

14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

Plaintiff Percy Lee Rhodes is a former pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

On December 6, 2022, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint addressing the five claims 

asserted against various defendants. (Doc. 9.) Ultimately, the Court directed Plaintiff to do one of 

the following: (1) notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file a first amended 

complaint and that he is willing to proceed only on his claims for deliberate indifference to 

serious medical need against Defendants Ruiz, Lightner and McComas, and the denial of access 

to courts against Defendant Cortez; or (2) file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies 

identified in the screening order; or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 22.) In 

response, Plaintiff filed notice that he did not wish to file an amended complaint and instead 

wished to proceed on the claims found cognizable. (Doc. 10.) 

Case 1:21-cv-00942-CDB Document 22 Filed 06/26/23 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

Thereafter, on January 4, 2023, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to 

Dismiss Certain Claims and Defendants. (Doc. 12.) Those findings were adopted on January 27, 

2023, by the district judge. (Doc. 13.) The Court then ordered service of the complaint.1(Doc. 

14.) 

On June 20, 2023, the Court issued an Amended Order Adopting Findings and 

Recommendations to Dismiss Certain Claims and Defendants. (Doc. 21.) In particular, the order 

corrected a scrivener’s error concerning claims against Defendant Lightner. (Id. at 2.) The 

Findings and Recommendations were adopted in part, Defendants Blair, Curran, Freitas, Huron, 

Padilla and Ward were dismissed, and the action was ordered to proceed on the following claims: 

(1) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Ruiz, Lightner and 

McComas, (2) an access to courts claim against Defendant Cortez, and (3) failure to protect and 

failure to train claims against Defendant Lightner. (Id. at 2-3.) 

It has since come to the Court’s attention that another scrivener’s error requires correction. 

II. DISCUSSION

In the First Screening Order, the undersigned also found Plaintiff had plausibly alleged 

failure to protect and failure to train claims against Defendant McComas. (See Doc. 9 at 20.) 

Unfortunately, those claims were mistakenly omitted in the “Conclusion and Order” section of 

the screening order. (Id. at 21-22.) Therefore, when the Court subsequently issued the Findings 

and Recommendations to Dismiss Certain Claims and Defendants, the failure to protect and 

failure to train claims against Defendant McComas were encompassed as claims recommended 

for dismissal. As a result, cognizable claims against Defendant McComas were dismissed in 

error. Therefore, the failure to protect and failure to train claims against Defendant McComas 

should be permitted to proceed in this action in accordance with the determination made in the 

Court’s First Screening Order.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS that:

1. The failure to protect and failure to train claims asserted against Defendant McComas, 

1 Service has been effected; however, a responsive pleading has not yet been filed by the defendants.

Case 1:21-cv-00942-CDB Document 22 Filed 06/26/23 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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, be permitted to proceed in this action; and

2. Defendants be granted a 30-day extension of time to file a responsive pleading 

addressing all cognizable claims identified herein in the event these findings are 

adopted by the assigned district judge.

For the sake of clarity, in the event these findings are adopted by the assigned district 

judge, this action would proceed on the following claims: (a) deliberate indifference to serious 

medical needs claims against Defendants Ruiz, Lightner, and McComas; (b) an access to courts 

claim against Defendant Cortez; (c) failure to protect and failure to train claims against Defendant 

Lightner; and (d) failure to protect and failure to train claims against Defendant McComas. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the 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: June 26, 2023 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00942-CDB Document 22 Filed 06/26/23 Page 3 of 3