Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01334/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01334-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLOYD SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADVENTIST HEALTH BAKERSFIELD, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-01334-KES-CDB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS THIS 

ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF 

CAN BE GRANTED

(Doc. 12)

Plaintiff Floyd Scott is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

filed 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 April 19, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to 

dismiss this action for plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

Doc. 12. Objections were to be filed within 14 days. Id. at 22. Plaintiff filed timely objections 

on May 3, 2024, and filed additional objections on October 17, 2024. Docs. 13, 15. 

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

case. In his timely objections, plaintiff argues that the incident where he fell from the wheelchair 

was caused by the hospital employee defendants and that the failure to treat the injury at the time 

of the incident caused a lifelong injury. Doc. 13 at 4, 9. Plaintiff also argues that the defendants 

interfered with his access to the court. Id. at 17-18. Plaintiff asks that his allegations be liberally 

construed and that he be afforded leave to file a third amended complaint. Id. at 9. Plaintiff filed 

Case 1:22-cv-01334-KES-CDB Document 16 Filed 10/22/24 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

additional objections on October 17, 2024, in which he restates his argument that the defendants 

were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and asks the court for leave to amend. 

Doc. 15.

Plaintiff’s objections do not undermine the magistrate judge’s analysis and largely repeat 

many of the same allegations that the magistrate judge found to not be cognizable. Plaintiff has 

been afforded leave to amend his complaint twice and has not been able to sufficiently state a 

claim for which relief can be granted. The court agrees with the magistrate judge that further 

leave to amend would be futile. 

In his objections, alternatively, plaintiff asks that the court remand this action to the 

Superior Court of Bakersfield. Doc. 13 at 18-19. However, “federal tribunals lack authority to 

remand to the state court system an action initiated in federal court.” Levin v. Com. Energy, Inc., 

560 U.S. 413, 428 (2010). As this case was initiated in federal court, the court cannot remand this 

action to state court.

Having reviewed the file, including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and 

recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 19, 2024, Doc. 12, are ADOPTED 

in full; 

2. This action is DISMISSED without leave to amend for plaintiff’s failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted; and 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate any pending motions or deadlines and 

to CLOSE this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01334-KES-CDB Document 16 Filed 10/22/24 Page 2 of 2