Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00388/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00388-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bivin
Defendant
Larry William Cortinas
Plaintiff
Dhillion
Defendant
Reynolds
Defendant
Rios
Defendant
Stewart
Defendant

Document Text:

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

ORDER

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 

Eastern District of California local rules. 

On November 18, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 

herein which were served on the parties, and which contained notice that the parties may file 

objections within the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations 

have been filed. 

The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:23-cv-00388-WBS-DMC Document 23 Filed 01/17/25 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 18, 2024, ECF No. 21,

are adopted in full.

2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff's first amended complaint as to the 

following claims:

(a) 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. 

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

Defendant Reynolds knew the wheelchair was necessary and denied it.

(c) 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. 

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

Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant Stewart knew about the use-of-force 

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. 

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

allegedly crushing Plaintiff in a cell door.

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

upon which relief can be granted. 

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

against whom relief can be granted. 

4. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further 

proceedings. 

Dated: January 16, 2025

Case 2:23-cv-00388-WBS-DMC Document 23 Filed 01/17/25 Page 2 of 2