Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00388/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00388-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS,

Plaintiff,

v. 

BIVIN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-CV-0388-WBS-DMC-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, ECF No. 16. 

 Plaintiff's allegations have been summarized in the Court's August 15, 2024, order. 

See ECF No. 17. In that order, the Court determined that Plaintiff's first amended complaint was 

appropriate for service on a number of defendants as to Plaintiff's Claim I, Claim II, and Claim 

IV. See id. Specifically, the Court stated that the following claims could proceed: 

(1) Plaintiff's medical deliberate indifference claim in Claim I that 

Defendant Rios knew a wheelchair was medically necessary and, 

nonetheless, ordered Plaintiff not to use it, causing Plaintiff to fall and hurt 

himself.

(2) Plaintiff's medical deliberate indifference claim in Claim II that 

Defendant Reynolds knew the wheelchair was necessary and denied it. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:23-cv-00388-WBS-DMC Document 21 Filed 11/18/24 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

(3) Plaintiff's claim in Claim IV against Defendant Dhillion for 

retaliation arising from Plaintiff’s allegations of Dhillion shutting the cell 

door on Plaintiff in response to Plaintiff having made grievances against 

him and other officers regarding the need for medical care, including the 

need for a wheelchair, a wheelchair pusher, and increased shower time due 

to his disability.

(4) Plaintiff's claim in Claim IV against Defendant Stewart based 

on Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant Stewart knew about the use-offorce staff complaint that Plaintiff had tried to file against Dhillion for his 

conduct, but failed to alert the investigative unit so that video 

documentation could be made of Plaintiff’s injuries. 

(5) Plaintiff's excessive force claim in Claim IV against Dhillion 

for allegedly crushing Plaintiff in a cell door. 

See id. 

Other claims were deemed insufficient to proceed and Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to 

amend within 30 days and cautioned that, if no amended complaint was filed within the time 

permitted therefor, the Court would recommend dismissal of those claims identified as deficient. 

See id. To date, more than 30 days have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended 

complaint. By separate order, the Court will direct service as to the claims and defendants 

identified above. 

 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends as follows: 

 1. This action proceed on Plaintiff's first amended complaint as to the claims 

and defendants outlined above. 

 2. Plaintiff's Claim III be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted. 

 3. Defendant Bivin be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim 

against whom relief can be granted. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 

with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:23-cv-00388-WBS-DMC Document 21 Filed 11/18/24 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

Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: November 18, 2024 

____________________________________ 

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00388-WBS-DMC Document 21 Filed 11/18/24 Page 3 of 3