Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01065/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01065-54/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL D. HARRISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-1065-AWI-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS

(ECF No. 285)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) On July 30, 2013, the Court screened 

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amended Complaint and found that it stated a cognizable claim against 

Defendants Jones, Moore, Burns, Dava, Kim, Edmonds, Galvan, C. Gonzalez, M. 

Gonzalez, Johnson, O’Neal, Parsons, Raygoza, Roth, Tumayo, Urbano, Vicente, Zakari, 

Bastianon, Campos, Casio, Cisneros, and Coronado for violation of Plaintiff’s rights 

under the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 160.) On August 26, 2015, summary judgment 

was granted in favor of Defendants Rabaino-Burns, Kim, and Dava. (ECF No. 266.)

Further proceedings in this action have been hampered by difficulties in serving 

some of the named Defendants. Relevant to the instant motion, re-service on 

Case 1:08-cv-01065-AWI-HBK Document 289 Filed 02/22/16 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

Defendants Zakari, Edmonds, and Raygoza was returned unexecuted on more than one 

occasion. (ECF Nos. 177, 179, 193, 194, 267, 279, 283.) Accordingly, they were 

dismissed. (ECF No. 284.) Defendants Bastianon and Johnson recently appeared in the 

action. (ECF Nos. 269, 275.) As a result of their recent appearance, a new scheduling

order issued, setting August 29, 2016 as the dispositive motion deadline. (ECF No. 272.)

Plaintiff does not wish to delay the instant litigation further and instead desires to 

proceed to trial. Accordingly, he moves to dismiss Defendants Zakari, Raygoza, 

Edmonds, Johnson and Bastianon. He asks that the case be set for settlement and/or 

trial. (ECF No. 285.) Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition and agree that, 

should these Defendants be dismissed, a new scheduling order is appropriate. 

The Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s motion be granted in part and denied in 

part. Because Defendants Zakari, Raygoza, and Edmonds already were dismissed, the 

motion is moot as to them. However, the Court will recommend that Defendants Johnson 

and Bastianon be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 285) be granted in part and denied in 

part;

2. Defendants Johnson and Bastianon be dismissed; and

3. The matter be referred back to the undersigned for the issuance of orders 

scheduling a settlement conference, pretrial matters, and trial.

The findings and recommendation are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and recommendation, 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 

Recommendation.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 

(14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 

Case 1:08-cv-01065-AWI-HBK Document 289 Filed 02/22/16 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

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: February 22, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01065-AWI-HBK Document 289 Filed 02/22/16 Page 3 of 3